Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Acts 15:6
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
6 12. The Council at Jerusalem; the debate and the speech of Peter. Narration of the work of Barnabas and Paul
6. And the apostles and elders came ( were gathered) together ] These words refer to a formal summoning to discuss the difficult question which had been brought forward. That there was a space between the first welcome of the Apostles by the church and the assembly of the synod suits St Paul’s words (Gal 2:2) that he explained his position “privately to them which were of reputation.” This private conference was a necessary preparation for the more public discussion which alone is noticed by the history.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
And the apostles and elders … – They came together in accordance with the authority in Mat 18:19-20. It would seem, also, that the whole church was convened on this occasion, and that the church concurred, at least, in the judgment expressed in this case. See Act 15:12, Act 15:22-23.
For to consider of this matter – Not to decide it arbitrarily, or even by authority, without deliberation; but to compare their views, and to express the result of the whole to the church at Antioch. It was a grave and difficult question, deeply affecting the entire constitution of the Christian church, and they therefore solemnly engaged in deliberation on the subject.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. The apostles and elders came together] This was the first council ever held in the Christian Church; and we find that it was composed of the apostles and elders simply.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The apostles and elders, unto whom Paul and Barnabas were sent about the decision of this question, Act 15:2,
came together for to consider of this matter; they had been informed of it, and now they met to deliberate about it.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. the apostles and elders cametogether to consider of thisbut in presence, as would seem, ofthe people (Act 15:12; Act 15:22;Act 15:23).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And the apostles and elders came together,…. And also the brethren, or private members of the church, even the whole church, as appears from Ac 15:22. Whether all the apostles were here present, is not certain; Peter, James, and John were; but who else, cannot be said: these met together
for to consider of this matter; to hear what was to be said on both sides of the question, and then to judge what advice was proper to be given to the Gentiles.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
| The Council at Jerusalem. |
| |
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. 12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. 15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. 18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. 19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: 20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
We have here a council called, not by writ, but by consent, on this occasion (v. 6): The apostles and presbyters came together, to consider this matter. They did not give their judgment separately, but came together to do it, that they might hear one another’s sense in this matter; for in the multitude of counsellors there is safety and satisfaction. They did not give their judgment rashly, but considered of this matter. Though they were clear concerning it in their own minds, yet they would take time to consider of it, and to hear what might be said by the adverse party. Nor did the apostles give their judgment concerning it without the elders, the inferior ministers, to whom they thus condescended, and on whom they thus put an honour. Those that are most eminent in gifts and graces, and are in the most exalted stations in the church, ought to show respect to their juniors and inferiors; for, though days should speak, yet there is a spirit in man,Job 32:7; Job 32:8. Here is a direction to the pastors of the churches, when difficulties arise, to come together in solemn meetings for mutual advice and encouragement, that they may know one another’s mind, and strengthen one another’s hands, and may act in concert. Now here we have,
I. Peter’s speech in this synod. He did not in the least pretend to any primacy or headship in this synod. He was not master of this assembly, nor so much as chairman or moderator, pro hac vice–on this occasion; for we do not find that either he spoke first, to open the synod (there having been much disputing before he rose up), nor that he spoke last, to sum up the cause and collect the suffrages; but he was a faithful, prudent zealous member of this assembly, and offered that which was very much to the purpose, and which would come better from him than from another, because he had himself been the first that preached the gospel to the Gentiles. There had been much disputing, pro and con, upon this question, and liberty of speech allowed, as ought to be in such cases; those of the sect of the Pharisees were some of them present, and allowed to say what they could in defence of those of their opinion at Antioch, which probably was answered by some of the elders; such questions ought to be fairly disputed before they are decided. When both sides had been heard, Peter rose up, and addressed himself to the assembly, Men and brethren, as did James afterwards, v. 13. And here,
1. He put them in mind of the call and commission he had some time ago to preach the gospel to the Gentiles; he wondered there should be any difficulty made of a matter already settled: You know that aph hemeron archaion—from the beginning of the days of the gospel, many years ago, God made choice among us apostles of one to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, and I was the person chosen, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word, and believe, v. 7. You know I was questioned about it and cleared myself to the universal satisfaction; every body rejoiced that God had granted to the Gentiles repentance unto life, and nobody said a word of circumcising them, nor was there any thought of such a thing. See ch. xi. 18. “Why should the Gentiles who hear the word of the gospel by Paul’s mouth be compelled to submit to circumcision, any more than those that heard it by my mouth? Or why should the terms of their admission now be made harder than they were then?”
2. He puts them in mind how remarkably God owned him in preaching to the Gentiles, and gave testimony to their sincerity in embracing the Christian faith (v. 8): “God, who knows the hearts, and therefore is able to judge infallibly of men, bore them witness that they were his indeed, by giving them the Holy Ghost; not only the graces and comforts, but the extraordinary miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us apostles.” See ch. xi. 15-17. Note, The Lord knows those that are his, for he knows men’s hearts; and we are as our hearts are. Those to whom God gives the Holy Ghost, he thereby bears witness to that they are his; hence we are said to be sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise–marked for God. God had bidden the Gentiles welcome to the privilege of communion with him, without requiring them to be circumcised and to keep the law; and therefore shall not we admit them into communion with us but upon those terms? “God has put no difference between us and them (v. 9); they, though Gentiles, are as welcome to the grace of Christ and the throne of grace as we Jews are; why then should we set them at a distance, as if we were holier than they?” Isa. lxv. 5. Note, We ought not to make any conditions of our brethren’s acceptance with us but such as God has made the conditions of their acceptance with him, Rom. xiv. 3. Now the Gentiles were fitted for communion with God, in having their hearts purified by faith, and that faith God’s own work in them; and therefore why should we think them unfit for communion with us, unless they will submit to the ceremonial purifying enjoined by the law to us? Note, (1.) By faith the heart is purified; we are not only justified, and conscience purified, but the work of sanctification is begun and carried on. (2.) Those that have their hearts purified by faith are therein made so nearly to resemble one another, that, whatever difference there may be between them, no account is to be made of it; for the faith of all the saints is alike precious, and has like precious effects (2 Peter i. 1), and those that by it are united to Christ are so to look upon themselves as joined to one another as that all distinctions, even that between Jew and Gentile, are merged and swallowed up in it.
3. He sharply reproves those teachers (some of whom, it is likely, were present) who went about to bring the Gentiles under the obligation of the law of Moses, v. 10. The thing is so plain that he cannot forbear speaking of it with some warmth: “Now therefore, since God has owned them for his, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, of the believing Gentiles and their children” (for circumcision was a yoke upon their infant seed, who are here reckoned among the disciples), “a yoke which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?” Here he shows that in this attempt, (1.) They offered a very great affront to God: “You tempt him, by calling that in question which he has already settled and determined by no less an indication than that of the gift of the Holy Ghost; you do, in effect, ask, ‘Did he know what he did? Or was he in earnest in it? Or will he abide by his own act?’ Will you try whether God, who designed the ceremonial law for the people of the Jews only, will now, in its last ages, bring the Gentiles too under the obligation of it, to gratify you?” Those tempt God who prescribe to him, and say that people cannot be saved but upon such and such terms, which God never appointed; as if the God of salvation must come into their measures. (2.) They offered a very great wrong to the disciples: Christ came to proclaim liberty to the captives, and they go about to enslave those whom he has made free. See Neh. v. 8. The ceremonial law was a heavy yoke; they and their fathers found it difficult to be borne, so numerous, so various, so pompous, were the institutions of it. The distinction of meats was a heavy yoke, not only as it rendered conversation less pleasant, but as it embarrassed conscience with endless scruples. The ado that was made about even unavoidable touch of a grave or a dead body, the pollution contracted by it, and the many rules about purifying from that pollution, were a heavy burden. This yoke Christ came to ease us of, and called those that were weary and heavy laden under it to come and take his yoke upon them, his easy yoke. Now for these teachers to go about to lay that yoke upon the neck of the Gentiles from which he came to free even the Jews was the greatest injury imaginable to them.
4. Whereas the Jewish teachers had urged that circumcision was necessary to salvation, Peter shows it was so far from being so that both Jews and Gentiles were to be saved purely through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in no other way (v. 11): We believe to be saved through that grace only; pisteuomen sothenai—We hope to be saved; or, We believe unto salvation in the same manner as they—kath hontropon kakeinoi. “We that are circumcised believe to salvation, and so do those that are uncircumcised; and, as our circumcision will be no advantage to us, so their uncircumcision will be no disadvantage to them; for we must depend upon the grace of Christ for salvation, and must apply that grace by faith, as well as they. There is not one way of salvation for the Jews and another for the Gentiles; neither circumcision avails any thing nor uncircumcision (that is neither here nor there), but faith which works by love, Gal. v. 6. Why should we burden them with the law of Moses, as necessary to their salvation, when it is not that, but the gospel of Christ, that is necessary both to our salvation and theirs?”
II. An account of what Barnabas and Paul said in this synod, which did not need to be related, for they only gave in a narrative of what was recorded in the foregoing chapters, what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them, v. 12. This they had given in to the church at Antioch (ch. xiv. 27), to their brethren by the way (ch. xv. 3), and now again to the synod; and it was very proper to be given in here. That which was contended for was that the Gentiles ought to submit to the law of Moses; now, in opposition to this, Paul and Barnabas undertake to show, by a plain relation of matters of fact, that God owned the preaching of the pure gospel to them without the law, and therefore to press the law upon them now was to undo what God had done. Observe, 1. What account they gave; they declared, or opened in order, and with all the magnifying and affecting circumstances, what glorious miracles, what signs and wonders, God had wrought among the Gentiles by them, what confirmation he had given to their preaching by miracles wrought in the kingdom of nature, and what success he had given to it by miracles wrought in the kingdom of grace. Thus God had honoured these apostles whom Jewish teachers condemned, and had thus honoured the Gentiles whom they contemned. What need had they of any other advocate when God himself pleaded their cause? The conversion of the Gentiles was itself a wonder, all things considered, no less than a miracle. Now if they received the Holy Ghost by the hearing of faith, why should they be embarrassed with the works of the law? See Gal. iii. 2. 2. What attention was given to them: All the multitude (who, though they had not voted, yet came together to hear what was said) kept silence, and gave audience to Paul and Barnabas; it should seem they took more notice of their narrative than they did of all the arguments that were offered. As in natural philosophy and medicine nothing is so satisfactory as experiments, and in law nothing is so satisfactory as cases adjudged, so in the things of God the best explication of the word of grace is the accounts given of the operations of the Spirit of grace; to these the multitude will with silence give audience. Those that fear God will most readily hear those that can tell them what God has done for their souls, or by their means, Ps. lxvi. 16.
III. The speech which James made to the synod. He did not interrupt Paul and Barnabas, though, it is likely, he had before heard their narrative, but let them go on with it, for the edification of the company, and that they might have it from the first and best hand; but, after they had held their peace, then James stood up. You may all prophesy one by one, 1 Cor. xiv. 31. God is the God of order. He let Paul and Barnabas say what they had to say, and then he made the application of it. The hearing of variety of ministers may be of use when one truth does not drive out, but clench, another.
1. He addresses himself respectfully to those present: “Men and brethren, hearken unto me. You are men, and therefore, it is to be hoped, will hear reason; you are my brethren, and therefore will hear me with candour. We are all brethren, and equally concerned in this cause that nothing be done to the dishonour of Christ and the uneasiness of Christians.”
2. He refers to what Peter had said concerning the conversion of the Gentiles (v. 14): “Simeon” (that is, Simon Peter) “hath declared, and opened the matter to you–how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, in Cornelius and his friends, who were the first-fruits of the Gentiles–how, when the gospel began first to spread, presently the Gentiles were invited to come and take the benefit of it;” and James observes here, (1.) That the grace of God was the origin of it; it was God that visited the Gentiles; and it was a kind visit. Had they been left to themselves, they would never have visited him, but the acquaintance began on his part; he not only visited and redeemed his people, but visited and redeemed those that were lo ammi–not a people. (2.) that the glory of God was the end of it: it was to take out of them a people for his name, who should glorify him, and in whom he would be glorified. As of old he took the Jews, so now the Gentiles, to be to him for a name, and for a praise, and for a glory, Jer. xiii. 11. Let all the people of God remember that therefore they are thus dignified in God, that God may be glorified in them.
3. He confirms this with a quotation out of the Old Testament: he could not prove the calling of the Gentiles by a vision, as Peter could, nor by miracles wrought by his hand, as Paul and Barnabas could, but he would prove that it was foretold in the Old Testament, and therefore it must be fulfilled, v. 15. To this agree the words of the prophets; most of the Old-Testament prophets spoke more or less of the calling in of the Gentiles, even Moses himself, Rom. x. 19. It was the general expectation of the pious Jews that the Messiah should be a light to enlighten the Gentiles (Luke ii. 32): but James waives the more illustrious prophecies of this, and pitches upon one that seemed more obscure: It is written,Amo 9:11; Amo 9:12, where is foretold, (1.) The setting up of the kingdom of the Messiah (v. 16): I will raise up the tabernacle of David, that is fallen. The covenant was made with David and his seed; but the house and family of David are here called his tabernacle, because David in his beginning was a shepherd, and dwelt in tents, and his house, that had been as a stately palace, had become a mean and despicable tabernacle, reduced in a manner to its small beginning. This tabernacle was ruined and fallen down; there had not been for many ages a king of the house of David; the sceptre had departed from Judah, the royal family was sunk and buried in obscurity, and, as it should seem, not enquired after. But God will return, and will build it again, raise it out of its ruins, a phoenix out of its ashes; and this was now lately fulfilled, when our Lord Jesus was raised out of that family, had the throne of his father David given him, with a promise that he should reign over the house of Jacob for ever,Luk 1:32; Luk 1:33. And, when the tabernacle of David was thus rebuilt in Christ, all the rest of it was, not many years after, wholly extirpated and cut off, as was also the nation of the Jews itself, and all their genealogies were lost. The church of Christ may be called the tabernacle of David. This may sometimes be brought very low, and may seem to be in ruins, but it shall be built again, its withering interests shall revive; it is cast down, but not destroyed: even dry bones are made to live. (2.) The bringing in of the Gentiles as the effect and consequence of this (v. 17): That the residue of men might seek after the Lord; not the Jews only, who thought they had the monopoly of the tabernacle of David, but the residue of men, such as had hitherto been left out of the pale of the visible church; they must now, upon this re-edifying of the tabernacle of David, be brought to seek after the Lord, and to enquire how they may obtain his favour. When David’s tabernacle is set up, they shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king,Hos 3:5; Jer 30:9. Then Israel shall possess the remnant of Edom (so it is in the Hebrew); but the Jews called all the Gentiles Edomites, and therefore the Septuagint leave out the particular mention of Edom, and read it just as it is here, that the residue of men might seek (James here adds, after the Lord), and all the Gentiles, or heathen, upon whom my name is called. The Jews were for many ages so peculiarly favoured that the residue of men seemed neglected; but now God will have an eye to them, and his name shall be called upon by the Gentiles; his name shall be declared and published among them, and they shall be brought both to know his name and to call upon it: they shall call themselves the people of God, and he shall call them so; and thus, by consent of both parties, his name is called upon them. This promise we may depend upon the fulfilling of in its season; and now it begins to be fulfilled, for it is added, saith the Lord, who doeth this; who doeth all these things (so the Seventy); and the apostle here: he saith it who doeth it, who therefore said it because he was determined to do it; and who therefore does it because he hath said it; for though with us saying and doing are two things they are not so with God. The uniting of Jews and Gentiles in one body, and all those things that were done in order to it, which were here foretold, were, [1.] What God did: This was the Lord’s doing, whatever instruments were employed in it: and, [2.] It was what God delighted in, and was well pleased with; for he is the God of the Gentiles, as well as the Jews, and it is his honour to be rich in mercy to all that call upon him.
4. He resolves it into the purpose and counsel of God (v. 18): Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. He not only foretold the calling of the Gentiles many ages ago by the prophets (and therefore it ought not to be a surprise or stumbling-block to us), but he foresaw and foreordained it in his eternal counsels, which are unquestionably wise and unalterably firm. It is an excellent maxim here laid down concerning all God’s works, both of providence and grace, in the natural and spiritual kingdom, that they were all known unto him from the beginning of the world, from the time he first began to work, which supposes his knowing them (as other scriptures speak) from before the foundation of the world, and therefore from all eternity. Note, Whatever God does, he did before design and determine to do; for he works all, not only according to his will, but according to the counsel of his will: he not only does whatever he determined (Ps. cxxxv. 6), which is more than we can do (our purposes are frequently broken off, and our measures broken), but he determined whatever he does. Whatever he may say, to prove us, he himself knows what he will do. We know not our works beforehand, but must do as occasion shall serve, 1 Sam. x. 7. What we shall do in such or such a case we cannot tell till it comes to the setting to; but known unto God are all his works; in the volume of his book (called the scriptures of truth, Dan. x. 21) they are all written in order, without any erasure or interlining (Ps. xl. 7); and all God’s works will, in the day of review, be found to agree exactly with his counsels, without the least error or variation. We are poor short-sighted creatures; the wisest men can see but a little way before them, and not at all with any certainty; but this is our comfort, that, whatever uncertainty we are at, there is an infallible certainty in the divine prescience: known unto God are all his works.
5. He gives his advice what was to be done in the present case, as the matter now stood with reference to the Gentiles (v. 19): My sentence is; ego krino—I give it as my opinion, or judgment; not as having authority over the rest, but as being an adviser with them. Now his advice is,
(1.) That circumcision and the observance of the ceremonial law be by no means imposed upon the Gentile converts; no, not so much as recommended nor mentioned to them. “There are many from among the Gentiles that are turned to God in Christ, and we hope there will be many more. Now I am clearly for using them with all possible tenderness, and putting no manner of hardship or discouragement upon them,” me parenochlein–“not to give them any molestation nor disturbance, nor suggest any thing to them that may be disquieting, or raise scruples in their minds, or perplex them.” Note, Great care must be taken not to discourage nor disquiet young converts with matters of doubtful disputation. Let the essentials of religion, which an awakened conscience will readily receive, be first impressed deeply upon them, and these will satisfy them and make them easy; and let not things foreign and circumstantial be urged upon them, which will but trouble them. The kingdom of God, in which they are to be trained up, is not meat and drink, neither the opposition nor the imposition of indifferent things, which will but trouble them; but it is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which we are sure will trouble nobody.
(2.) That yet it would be well that in some things, which gave most offence to the Jews, the Gentiles should comply with them. Because they must not humour them so far as to be circumcised, and keep the whole law, it does not therefore follow that they must act in a continual contradiction to them, and study how to provoke them. It will please the Jews (and, if a little thing will oblige them, better do so than cross them) if the Gentile converts abstain, [1.] From pollutions of idols, and from fornication, which are two bad things, and always to be abstained from; but writing to them particularly and expressly to abstain from them (because in these things the Jews were jealous of the Gentile converts, lest they should transgress) would very much gratify the Jews; not but that the apostles, both in preaching and writing to the Gentiles that embraced Christianity, were careful to warn against, First, Pollutions of idols, that they should have no manner of fellowship with idolaters in their idolatrous worships, and particularly not in the feasts they held upon their sacrifices. See 1Co 10:14; 2Co 6:14, c. Secondly, Fornication, and all manner of uncleanness. How large, how pressing, is Paul in his cautions against this sin! 1Co 6:9-15Eph 5:3, c. But the Jews, who were willing to think the worst of those they did not like, suggested that these were things in which the Gentiles, even after conversion, allowed themselves, and the apostle of the Gentiles connived at it. Now, to obviate this suggestion, and to leave no room for this calumny, James advises that, besides the private admonitions which were given them by their ministers, they should be publicly warned to abstain from pollutions of idols and from fornication–that herein they should be very circumspect, and should avoid all appearances of these two evils, which would be in so particular a manner offensive to the Jews. [2.] From things strangled, and from blood, which, though not evil in themselves, as the other two, nor designed to be always abstained from, as those were, had been forbidden by the precepts of Noah (Gen. ix. 4), before the giving of the law of Moses and the Jews had a great dislike to them, and to all those that took a liberty to use them; and therefore, to avoid giving offence, let the Gentile converts abridge themselves of their liberty herein, 1Co 8:9; 1Co 8:13. Thus we must become all things to all men.
6. He gives a reason for his advice–that great respect ought to be shown to the Jews for they have been so long accustomed to the solemn injunctions of the ceremonial law that they must be borne with, if they cannot presently come off from them (v. 21): For Moses hath of old those that preach him in every city, his writings (a considerable part of which is the ceremonial law) being read in the synagogues every sabbath day. “You cannot blame them if they have a great veneration for the law of Moses; for besides that they are very sure God spoke to Moses,” (1.) “Moses is continually preached to them, and they are called upon to remember the law of Moses,” Mal. iv. 4. Note, Even that word of God which is written to us should also be preached: those that have the scriptures have still need of ministers to help them to understand and apply the scriptures. (2.) “His writings are read in a solemn religious manner, in their synagogues, and on the sabbath day, in the place and at the time of their meetings for the worship of God; so that from their childhood they have been trained up in a regard to the law of Moses; the observance of it is a part of their religion.” (3.) “This has been done of old time; they have received from their fathers an honour for Moses; they have antiquity for it.” (4.) “This had been done in every city, wherever there are any Jews, so that none of them can be ignorant what stress that law laid upon these things: and therefore, though the gospel has set us free from these things, yet they cannot be blamed if they are loth to part with them, and cannot of a sudden be persuaded to look upon those things as needless and indifferent which they, and their fathers before them, had been so long taught, and taught of God too, to place religion in. We must therefore give them time, must meet them half-way; they must be borne with awhile, and brought on gradually, and we must comply with them as far as we can without betraying our gospel liberty.” Thus does this apostle show the spirit of a moderator, that is, a spirit of moderation, being careful to give no offence either to Jew or Gentile, and contriving, as much as may be, to please both sides and provoke neither. Note, We are not to think it strange if people be wedded to customs which they have had transmitted to them from their fathers, and which they have been educated in an opinion of as sacred; and therefore allowances must be made in such cases, and not rigour used.
Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary
Were gathered together (). First aorist (effective) passive indicative. The church is not named here as in verse 4, but we know from verses 12-22 that the whole church came together this time also along with the apostles and elders.
Of this matter ( ). Same idiom in Acts 8:21; Acts 19:38. They realized the importance of the issue.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
1) “And the apostles and elders came together,” (sunechthesan te hoi apostoliu kai hoi presbuteroi) “And the apostles and the elders (of the Jerusalem church) were assembled or gathered together in colleague,” or came together as colleagues, in close fellowship affinity, unity, or accord. It appears that after the general members of the church received the mission report of Paul and Barnabas, the apostles and elders, mature ordained brethren in the church, then met further to evaluate the issue that had especially troubled the church at Antioch. The church also came together later to adopt the decrees, dogma, or resolution of the council brethren that was thereafter sent to Antioch, Syria, Cilicia, and Asia, Act 15:12; Act 15:22-27; Act 16:4.
2) “For to consider this matter.” (idein pere tou logou toutou) “For the purpose of, or with view to consider the issue,” this particular matter, to see about the matter that had caused dissension in the Antioch church in Syria, and that had come to disturb Paul and Barnabas, because it conflicted with the way of salvation which they had preached, by which they had seen so many Jews and Gentiles saved, Rom 14:16.
The apostles and elders of the Jerusalem church entered council with Paul, Barnabas, and the “certain other” brethren from the Antioch church. When they in council heard the “Be circumcised or be damned,” contentions, they evaluated the contention of the Pharisee believers who erred in their judgement and teaching on the law of Moses. They then reviewed the matter before the Jerusalem church, then both the Jerusalem church and council sent a letter of counsel or advice back to the Antioch church in Syria, to be passed on to other churches. This is the essence of the Jerusalem council, presided over by James, considered to be pastor of the church at Jerusalem, Act 15:13-22.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
−
6. The apostles and elders met together. Luke saith, not that all the whole Church was gathered together, but those who did excel in doctrine and judgment, and those who, according to their office, were competent − (91) judges in this matter. It may be, indeed, that the disputation was had in presence of the people. But lest any man should think that the common people were suffered hand over head to handle the matter, Luke doth plainly make mention of the apostles and elders, as it was more meet that they should hear the matter and to decide it. − (92) But let us know, that here is prescribed by God a form and an order in assembling synods, when there ariseth any controversy which cannot otherwise be decided. For seeing that many did daily gainstand Paul, this disputation alone, by reason whereof there was great ruin like to ensue, and which was already come to hot combats, did enforce him to go to Jerusalem. −
(91) −
“
Legitimi,” lawful.
(92) −
“
Sicut magis idonei erant cognitores,” as they were more apt to take cognisance of it.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
HOMILETICAL ANALYSIS.Act. 15:6-21
The Council at Jerusalem; or, the Circumcision Controversy Settled
I. The composition of the council.
1. The apostles. The twelve; Paul not yet included in their number. These, as having been chosen by Christ, were naturally regarded as the heads of the Christian community, which accordingly looked to them for counsel in matters of Church administration, and especially for guidance in circumstances of difficulty.
2. The elders. The presidents, superintendents, or overseers, of the different Christian synagogues, or Churches. How large a body the eldership formed cannot be surmised; but all its members, it is clear, stood on an equality as presbyters.
3. The brethren. The members of the Church called the multitude (Act. 15:12); the whole Church (Act. 15:22). Whether these took an active part in the discussion cannot be answered without knowing in what capacity James (Act. 15:13) spoke; that they were associated with the apostles and elders in the finding of the court the narrative distinctly states (Act. 15:22). The three bodies stood to each other as the Boul or council, the Gerusia or senate, and the Ecclesia or assembly, in a Greek Republic (Plumptre).
II. The deliberations of the council.
1. Peters speech. After considerable discussion, in which the brethren may have taken part, the Man of Rock, Cephas, or Peter, asked a hearing from the court.
(1) He reminded those present of a series of facts with which all were familiar (see 11.): first, that about fourteen years before God had specially selected him (Peter) to preach the gospel to the Gentiles, under such circumstances as evinced it to be the will of Heaven, that they (the Gentiles) should be invited to believe, and so be received into the Christian Church (see Act. 10:34); secondly, that God Himself, who, from His character as Heart Searcher, could be under no mistake concerning the inward attitude of any toward the gospel, had borne witness to the genuineness of their conversion, by granting them the Holy Ghost in the same manner as He had done unto the Jews (see Act. 10:44); and thirdly, that God had put no difference between themselves (the Jews) and the Gentiles on becoming Christiansthat in the case of both, faith had operated in the same way, and produced the same resultsviz., had led to the purification of the heart from sin, or, in other words, had made the nature holy.
(2) He asked them a question which contained a very powerful argument. Why they should seek to impose circumcision on the disciples? First, to do so was to be guilty of tempting Godi.e., of presumptuously putting Him to the proof by demanding additional evidences of His will, when those already furnished, and just recited by Peter, ought to be enough. Secondly, to do so would be to place upon the necks of the Gentile disciples a yoke which the Jews themselves had found to be intolerable, irksome, burdensome, oppressive, slavish in the extreme, as it could not fail to be when men came to regard it (as the Jews unfortunately did, and now desired to teach the Gentiles that it was) indispensable for salvation. Thirdly, to do so was to insist upon a ritual which experience had shown to be altogether unnecessary. The Jews themselves who believed had practically confessed that they could not be saved by the ceremonies of the Law, and had turned to seek salvation by grace; if so, how could it be other than inconsistent and ridiculous to impose upon the Gentiles that in which the Jews themselves had lost faith.
2. Barnabass and Pauls orations. One after the other the two missionaries addressed the HouseBarnabas preceding, presumably on account of age, and because the council had, as yet, greater confidence in him. The subject handled by both was their missionary travels. One can imagine the eloquence with which the chief speaker would dilate upon the thrilling tale of their experiences and of Gods signs and wonders among the heathen, and almost see the bated breathall the multitude kept silencewith which the thronged assembly would listen to the story of the greatest revolution the world has ever seen. The speakers appear to have confined themselves to an unvarnished narrative of facts.
3. Jamess advice. The James who, after Barnabas and Paul had sat down, claimed the attention of the meeting was the brother of the Lord (Gal. 2:9), who, from the austere sanctity of his character, was commonly called, both by Jews and Christians, James the Just (Conybeare and Howson, i. 204). From the circumstance that he spoke last it has been quite reasonably inferred that he acted as president of the council, and that in all probability he was chief pastor in the Church of Jerusalem. From his well-known character as a strong legalist, his decision in favour of freedom, coming after Peters, could not fail to carry great weight. The substance of what he said was
(1) that the conversion of the Gentiles, as rehearsed by Simeon (Peters Hebrew name), was an exact fulfilment of Old-Testament prophecy, the particular prediction cited being taken from Amo. 9:11-12; and
(2) that, that being so, the conversion of the Gentiles manifestly had a place in the plan and purpose of God, to whom all His works were known from the beginning, so that nothing could occur by accident. After this he proceeded to give judgment on the case, which judgment the court unanimously adopted.
III. The finding of the council.
1. That Gentile Christians should not be troubled about circumcision, or other Jewish ceremonies. Neither those who already had turned, nor those who in future might turn, to God, by believing on Jesus, should be molested, worried, or harassed about these beggarly elements; but all should be left alone in that liberty wherewith Christ had made His people free (Gal. 5:1).
2. That Gentile Christians should be asked to abstain from certain things.
(1) Pollutions of idols. I.e., parts of sacrificial victims which had not been used in sacrifice, and which the heathen sold in the market for ordinary food, but which, as having been presented to an idol, the Jew regarded as entailing upon him who ate them the guilt of idolatry (compare Rom. 14:15; 1Co. 8:10).
(2) Fornication. The heathen mind had become so corrupt as to have practically lost all sense of chastity as a virtue; and besides, in connection with heathen festivals in honour of their deities, the most shameless licentiousness was frequently practised: hence, both of these considerations called for stringent prohibition of this sin.
(3) Things strangled. I.e., the flesh of animals not put to death in the ordinary way, which the Jews were not allowed to eat, because it was not properly drained of blood (Lev. 17:13-14; Deu. 12:16; Deu. 12:23).
(4) Blood. This heathens often drank at their idolatrous feasts, and even at other times, mingled with their food.
3. That the Gentile Christians should be instructed as to the reason for this partial restriction of their liberty. For Moses of old time (or from generations of old), hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath. Meaning that because of this constant reading of the Law the feelings of such Jewish Christians as had not broken with the synagogue would be wounded should Gentile Christians be exempted, not only from circumcision, but from such restrictions as were wont to be imposed on proselytes coming over from heathenism to Judaism. Hence, as a compromise, the above-mentioned prohibitions, the so-called Noachian precepts, were enjoined upon Gentile Christians.
Learn
1. The right of the Christian laity to take part in Church synods, assemblies, and councils.
2. The propriety of conducting all Church deliberations with decency and in order.
3. The wisdom of the Church membership giving heed to the counsels of its leaders.
4. The duty of Church councils to depend on nothing but moral suasion for the enforcement of their decrees.
HINTS AND SUGGESTIONS
Act. 15:6-21. The First Ecclesiastical Assembly.
I. The question discussed.Concerning the conditions of salvation.
II. The spirit manifested.A spirit of love and truth.
III. The standard recognised.Gods testimony in the Scriptures and in providence.
IV. The decision given.One of Christian wisdom, calculated to conciliate and promote union among the saved.
Act. 15:8. Gods Knowledge of the Heart.
I. Immediate.
II. Constant.
III. Thorough.
IV. Gracious.
Act. 15:9. No Difference between Us and Themi.e., between Man and Man.In respect of
I. The need of salvation. The hearts of all, being impure, require cleansing.
II. The provision of salvation. Christs atonement and the Spirits grace designed for all.
III. The condition of salvation. Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
IV. The possession of salvation. All who believe receive the Holy Spirit, which is the earnest of our inheritance.
Heart Purification.
I. The heart is by nature unclean, and requires cleansing.
II. This cleansing can be effected only by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.
III. The Holy Ghost always operates through the faith of the individual.
IV. The faith of the individual rests upon the truth of God.
Act. 15:11. The Apostles Creed.
I. That Jews, as well as Gentiles, alike need salvation.Both being alike under sin (Rom. 2:9).
II. That for Jews, as well as Gentiles, salvation can be only through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. None other name (Act. 4:12); only one Mediator (1Ti. 2:5)
III. That as a consequence, Jews, as well as Gentiles, can be saved in no other way than by faith without works.By the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified (Gal. 2:16).
IV. That Jews and Gentiles alike are sure of salvation, if they do believe.Whosoever believeth (Joh. 3:16).
The First Confession of Faith.
I. The error against which it guarded. Salvation by works.
II. The ground on which it rested. Gods word and Christian experience.
III. The spirit by which it was pervaded. Courage and humility; boldness and love.
IV. The gospel which it proclaimed. Salvation through Gods grace and mans faith.
V. The assent which it received. It was embraced by all the office-bearers and members of the Church.
Act. 15:14-18. The Conversion of the Gentiles.
I. An accomplished fact.God hath visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name.
II. A fulfilment of prophecy.In addition to Amo. 9:11-12, such passages as the following might have been quoted: Isa. 2:2; Isa. 9:2; Isa. 11:10; Isa. 25:6; Isa. 52:15; Jer. 4:2; Jer. 16:19; Dan. 7:14; Joe. 2:28; Zec. 8:23.
III. A foreseen event.Having had a place in Gods eternal counsel, it was known unto God from the beginning.
IV. A progressing work.The residue of men are still seeking after God. (See Hints on Act. 15:3.)
Act. 15:17-18. Old-Testament Views of God.
I. The Father of Men.
II. The Lord of the Nations.
III. The Ruler of the Universe.
IV. The Omniscient Worker.
V. The Supreme Good of Mankind.
Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell
4.
THE ELDERS AND APOSTLES MEET TO SETTLE THE DISPUTE. Act. 15:6-29
a.
Peters speech. Act. 15:6-11.
Act. 15:6
And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.
Act. 15:7
And when there had been much questioning, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Brethren, ye know that a good while ago God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
Act. 15:8
And God, who knoweth the heart, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Spirit, even as he did unto us;
Act. 15:9
and he made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith.
Act. 15:10
Now therefore why make ye trial of God, that ye should put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
Act. 15:11
But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in like manner as they.
Act. 15:6 The apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. In this private meeting there was yet a further discussion of the matter and no little disputing between those present (possibly between the elders and Paul and Barnabas). It is best sometimes to allow for an expression of all present before any logical conclusion can be drawn. Until all the evidence is in there can be no real comprehensive decision. It would seem that such was the procedure here in Jerusalem. At whatever circumstance, following the words of disputes: Peter arose to state his position.
508.
What was the first act of Paul and Barnabas upon arriving in Jerusalem?
509.
What was admitted by all? What was lacking according to some?
510.
Who alone had the power to decide on the issue?
511.
Why do we say that the dispute in the private meeting was between the elders and Paul and Barnabas?
Act. 15:7-11 The apostle to the circumcision spoke here on this subject as he had spoken some years before on the same subject to the same listeners. He had not forgotten the lesson Jehovah had given him in Joppa and Caesarea. He further stated here that God Himself had selected him of all the apostles that by his mouth should the Gentiles receive the gospel. A simple statement of reiteration was all that was necessary to call to their mind the reception of the Holy Spirit by the household of Cornelius. Yea, and likewise to call to mind that his was the work and choice of God. Here, now is the point of Peters speechhe says in essence: If you now demand that the Gentiles be circumcised and keep the Law of Moses, you are acknowledging that either you did not believe God the first time or that you are unwilling to accept His decision. Peter calls such action and thought tempting God and further than this he says, Why try to bind on the Gentiles the yoke of the law? Do you like it? Do you obey it? Yea, did even our fathers keep it? Nay, it became a galling burden to be borne. Why then bring the Gentiles under such a yoke? As a final word of proof Peter reminds the Jews that in the light of their failure to keep the law of customs and commandments they would necessarily have to be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus. If that is true, and surely any sincere Jew could see that it was, then why complain when God cleansed the hearts of the Gentiles through faith and saved them on the same basis of grace?
This silenced the assembly. There was not much that could be said in light of the irresistible logic of Peters words; and most especially since previous to this time they had glorified God at the conversion of the uncircumcised household of Cornelius. (cf. Act. 11:18).
b.
Paul and Barnabas tell of their work. Act. 15:12.
Act. 15:12
And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.
Act. 15:12 In the midst of the silence Paul and Barnabas again rehearsed in detail the miracles and wonders God granted to them in confirming His word among the heathen. The emphasis here put upon the miracles and wonders wrought by God was based upon the same promise as that of Peter, i.e. if God so worked with the apostles as they carried the gospel to the heathen, surely He was not displeased with the work of these men but was rather putting His stamp of approval upon it.
512.
Why all these speeches?
513.
Had Peter ever addressed this same group on this same subject before? When? Where?
514.
What was the point of Peters speech?
515.
Show the common sense of Peters closing remarks. (Act. 15:11).
516.
Give the point of the speeches of Paul and Barnabas.
c.
The speech of James. Act. 15:13-21.
Act. 15:13
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Brethren, hearken unto me:
Act. 15:14
Symeon hath rehearsed how first God visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
Act. 15:15
And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
Act. 15:16
After these things I will return, And I will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen; And I will build again the ruins thereof, And I will set it up:
Act. 15:17
That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, And all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called,
Act. 15:18
Saith the Lord, who maketh these things known from of old.
Act. 15:19
Wherefore my judgment is, that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God;
Act. 15:20
but that we write unto them, that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood.
Act. 15:21
For Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath.
Act. 15:13-18 Now for the final word upon the subject. This was given by James the Lords brother. There is much traditional material written concerning the piety and standing of James among the Jews in Jerusalem. Be that as it may, it at least appears that he was a leader in the church at Jerusalem.
While all were silent in giving attention to the words about to be spoken, James said in essence: Here is my judgment. You have just heard from Peter how God visited the Gentiles and took out of them some who would be His . . . Yea, this is even as the prophet Amos said . . . do you recall the prophecy? Possibly you do but you missed its application. Hear again the prophet and see afresh the fulfillment of his words. After these thingsYea, the very things that have come to pass in our history, i.e. the fall of the Jewish nation and the general dissolution of this proud people . . . After these things something is going to happen. What will it be? Jehovah will return to build again the tabernacle or house of David, which is fallen . . .
517.
Who was this man James?
518.
What did he add that had not already been said?
519.
Tell me about the building again of the tabernacle of Davidwhat is it and how is it said to be built again in the time of James?
How is this to be understood? Surely not in the literal building again of the house of David, for such was far from being so when James spoke . . . and yet James states that this prophecy is having its fulfillment. The only possible explanation is a spiritual one, that the house of David to be built again was a spiritual house. Yea, the ruins to be set up were to be from those Jews who had suffered under the penalty of their own rebellion and had yet found favor with God through Jesus Christ. They together were being builded into a habitation of God in the Spirit . . . That the residue of men seek after the Lord (Eph. 2:22; Act. 15:17.) This refers to the small remnant among the Jews who would find Christ and thus have part in this wonderful promise of the prophet. And then comes the word that bears directly upon the issue at hand. James says that in the building of Davids house through Christ not only would there be those few Jews who would find a part in this house but all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called. This settles the issue. From times of old God had determined that these things would be so.
Act. 15:19-21 What a splendid act and decision it was on the part of James to make such a statement. Well could he be called James the Just. The judgment of James was not only the expression of his own heart, but that of all who had honestly listened to the evidence: that, any from among the Gentiles who turned to God through Christ were not to be troubled with the Jewish law and traditions.
That this decision might be known to all and that no further trouble come up over it, it was decided to put it in written form. In this letter it would be well, James suggests, that some provision be made for the social intercourse of the Jews and Gentiles; and therefore certain restrictions about eating should be included so they might dine together; also to abstain from those obvious sins connected with idol worship and from fornication. The reason for the apparent compromise in these restrictions of eating is found not in the spirit of compromise but in that of wisdom; for Moses from generations of old hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath and to thus give no forbearance in light of this was not the part of wisdom. This seemed to settle the issue in the private meeting.
520.
What word given by James relates directly to the issue at hand?
521.
Why agree so readily with James?
522.
Why the restrictions in the letter?
d.
The letter on circumcision. Act. 15:22-29.
Act. 15:22
Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Act. 15:23
and they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting:
Act. 15:24
Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls; to whom we gave no commandment;
Act. 15:25
it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord, to choose out men and send them unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Act. 15:26
men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Act. 15:27
We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also shall tell you the same things by word of mouth.
Act. 15:28
For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:
Act. 15:29
that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves, it shall be well with you. Fare ye well.
Act. 15:22-29 The whole church was called together by the apostles and elders and with the suggestion of their leaders they chose two of their chief men; Judas, called Barsabbas and Silas and sent them with Paul and Barnabas to bear the letter. Here is the letter, the first written document of the apostolic church, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit . . . written with the purpose and theme of unity . . . Oh, how the same message is needed today! (Refer to Act. 15:23-29).
Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series
(6) And the apostles and elders came together.The meeting rightly takes its place as the first in the long series of councils, or synods, which mark the course of the Churchs history. It bore its witness that the government of the Christian society was not to rest in the autocracy of a single will, but in the deliberative decision of those who, directly or indirectly, having been appointed by the choice, or with the approval, of the people, represented the whole community. Presbyters had an equal voice with the Apostles, whose position was analogous to that of the later bishops. Those whom we should call the laity were present at the deliberations, and, though we have no absolute proof that they took part in them, gave their vote. (Comp. Note on Act. 15:23.) Strictly speaking, it was, in the later ecclesiastical language, a provincial and not an cumenical synod, called to decide what seemed a question of discipline rather than of doctrine; but the ground on which the question had been argued made it one of world-wide dogmatic importance. If circumcision was necessary, then faith in Christ was insufficient. St. Paul saw and felt this in all its fulness, and therefore would not give way by subjection, no, not for an hour (Gal. 2:5). We have no data for estimating the number of the presbyters who were present. Probably they included those of the neighbouring towns and villages of Juda as well as of Jerusalem, and if so, we may fairly think of some number between fifty and a hundred.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Session of the Council , Act 15:6 .
6. Came together We have not here an example of what has in Church history been called “ a General Council,” that is, an assemblage of delegates and representatives from the various parts of Christendom to consult and decide the affairs of the universal Church. We have simply a respectful delegation from one Church to another Church possessed of superior special advantages for agreeing upon a great question.
The so-called General Councils receive from the Romish and Greek Churches profound deference, as of binding authority over their faith. The Seven General Councils are a final appeal for all members of the Greek communion. But none of them could show the inspired authority of this apostolic assembly, who could truly say, It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us.
On the question discussed at this council there still remained a variety of shades and opinions. 1. The views of Paul, which were at first unknown to the Church, became the true central doctrine of the Apostolic Church. He consented to the indulgence of all who insisted upon it, in the performance of all those rites of Judaism which were in themselves solemn and devout, though not obligatory performances; PROVIDED, it was not claimed or granted that they were a necessary part of Christianity, or necessary to salvation, and provided they became not a real impediment to the salvation of souls by Christ. 2. But there afterward came the celebrated Marcion, of Pontus, who was an ultra Paulist, discarding not only circumcision and the ritual, but discarding the Old Testament and the very Jehovah of the Old Testament. 3. On the other hand, James, the Bishop (presiding Presbyter) of Jerusalem, rigidly persisted probably in keeping the whole law so far as himself was concerned, and perhaps counselled the same of all Jewish Christians. He with his section of thinkers probably attended through life the prayers, sacrifices, and solemn services of the temple. 4. The Judaists who figured at Antioch went much further than James, and held forth to Gentiles as well as Jews, Ye cannot be saved without the deeds of the Mosaic ritual law. (See notes on Act 10:1; Act 11:19; Act 21:40.)
A significant fruit of the triumph of Paul and Gentilism was (as adduced by Paul, Gal 2:3) that Titus, though a Gentile, was not required by the Council to be circumcised. He was doubtless brought there by Paul as a test case. On the one hand, even if Paul were willing himself to circumcise him in Asia Minor to secure him access to Jews, he would refuse all consent to his circumcision when the requirement of circumcision was the point of controversy at Jerusalem. On the other hand, for the Council to yield the point that this young Gentile could be an uncircumcised Christian, was to surrender the whole matter to Paul. Titus was a living monument of pure Gentile Christianity.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And the apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter.’
It was right that these matters be brought up because that was why the Apostles and elders had gathered together to consider the matter. A pronouncement on the issue was required. Indeed it was a question on which minds needed to be clarified. We should not therefore see this as unnecessary dissension.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Act 15:6 . The consultation of the apostles and presbyters concerning this assertion ( , see Act 15:5 ) thus put forward here afresh, was not confined to themselves (Schwanbeck, who here assumes a confusion of sources), but took place in presence, and with the assistance, of the whole church assembled together, as is evident from Act 15:12 , comp. with Act 15:22 , and most clearly from Act 15:25 , where the (Act 15:23 ) write of themselves: . Against this it has been objected that no place would have sufficed to hold them, and therefore it is maintained that only deputies of the church took part (Mosheim, de reb. Christ. ante Const. M. p. 117, Kuinoel, Neander); but this is entirely arbitrary, as the text indicates nothing of such a limitation, and the locality is entirely unknown to us.
This assembly and its transactions are not at variance with Gal 2:1 ff. (in opposition to Baur, Zeller, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath), where, indeed, they are presupposed as known to the readers by in Act 15:2 , as well as by Act 15:3 and Act 15:5 . Hofmann, N.T. I. p. 126, judges otherwise, but by a misinterpretation of Gal 2:4 ff. The words , Gal 2:2 , betoken a separate discussion, different from these public discussions. See on Gal. l.c.; comp. also Lekebusch, p. 294 ff.; Lechler, p. 398 ff.; Ritschl, altkath. K. p. 150; Trip, Paulus nach d. Apostelgesch . p. 86 ff.; Oertel, p. 232 ff.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
B.COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS AT THE ASSEMBLY IN JERUSALEM WHICH DECIDED THE QUESTION
Act 15:6-21
6And [But] the apostles and elders came together for [in order] to consider of [om. of] this matter. 7And when there had been much disputing [But after a long debate had taken place], Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us [you]5, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8And God, which [who] knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving [in that he gave] them the Holy Ghost, even as he did [even as] unto us; 9And put no difference [made no distinction] between us and them, purifying [in that he purified] their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put [by putting] a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ [om. Christ]6 we shall be saved, even [in the same manner, ] as they. 12Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience [listened] to Barnabas and Paul, declaring [while they related] what miracles [what great signs, ] and wonders God had wrought [done] among the Gentiles by [through] them. 13And after they had held their peace [were silent], James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14Simeon [Simon] hath declared [related] how God at the first [at first] did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name7. 15And to [with] this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 16After this [Afterwards] I will return, and will build again [build up] the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: 17That the residue of men might [the men who are left over may] seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles [nations], upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all [om. all]8 these things. 18Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. [(Act 15:17)these things (Act 15:18), which were always known].9 19Wherefore my sentence is, [Therefore I judge], that we trouble not [should not trouble] them, which [those who] from among the Gentiles are turned [converted] to God: 20But that we [should] write unto [charge] them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from [from the abominations of idolatry and] fornication, and from things [that which is] strangled, and from blood. 21For Moses of old time hath in every city [in cities here and there, ] them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day [sabbath].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Act 15:6. And the apostles and elders came together.; this assembly was called together expressly and solely for the purpose of considering the present matter ( ), i.e., the point which was in dispute. Luke speaks only of the apostles and elders; but it distinctly appears from Act 15:12; Act 15:22 ff. ( , , ), that the congregation was also present, not merely for the purpose of listening, but also of coperating in deciding the question.
Act 15:7-9. a. And when there had been much disputing.An animated debate at first occurred, and the disputants came in direct collision with each other ( ): opinions which were diametrically opposed to one another were expressed in the most explicit and emphatic manner. We may thence infer that the speakers represented respectively the two opposite parties, the Judaists, on the one hand, and the Antiochian Gentile-Christians, on the other. But Peter now arises, amid the confusion produced by such conflicting views and feelings, and states a leading principle, the application of which promotes a peaceful solution of the difficulty. He addresses himself directly to those who entertain Pharisaic and legal views, as the reproach which occurs in Act 15:10, and which assumes an interrogative form, plainly shows; he designs, not merely to calm their excited minds, but also to convince them that they erred, that they were doing a wrong, that they committed a sin. With this view, he reminds them of a fact with which they were well acquainted ( ), namely, the conversion of Cornelius and the Gentiles who were associated with him (Act 10:27; Act 10:44 ff.). He describes the occurrence as one that had taken place a long time ago ( ), that is, at least ten years previously, if not at an earlier date.
b. Peter rose up, and said, etc.He first exhibits the deep significance of that occurrence (Act 15:7-9), and then applies it to the question which was under discussion. Four of its characteristic features were adduced, as evidences of its great importance. (a) God was, on that occasion, the direct author of the whole ( etc.; . , , etc.; , etc.). (b) The preaching of the Gospel, in consequence of which those pagans had become believers, was not exclusively his own (Peters) work, but had at that time been assigned to the whole church; God had chosen him merely on this special occasion ( . etc.). (c) The omniscient God bore witness to those pagans of his good pleasure, by giving the Holy Ghost (, dat. comm.). Peter here assumes that God gives the Holy Ghost to those alone who are acceptable in his sight; and, that He could not be deceived in those persons, is implied by the epithet . (d) After God had purified the hearts of the pagans by faith, He no longer made any distinction whatever between them and the believing Israelites.The words , allude very distinctly to those which were spoken to Peter in the vision, Act 10:15. God had cleansed the hearts of the pagans; their uncleanness was not, as those who entertained Pharisaical views vainly supposed, that of the body; it was, hence, not circumcision, but faith, which constituted the means of purification.
Act 15:10. Why tempt ye God?In this verse Peter makes the application to the present controversy, by proposing a question which conveys a reproach: Under these circumstances(), [a divine decision having already been made in the former case (Alex.).Tr.], why do ye tempt God, by seeking to put a yoke upon them? (, Inf. epexeg. in a loose connection. [The infinitive here describes the manner in which a certain purpose that is stated, is to be accomplished. (Winer: Gr. N. T. 44. 1).Tr.]). Such conduct was a tempting of God, that is, a course of action, when man undertakes, or is at least willing, to ascertain whether God will make known and execute his will by punishments, to the inquirers own harm and ruin. The yoke which they wished to put on the neck of the disciples, is not exclusively the rite of circumcision, but, in connection with it, the entire Mosaic law [Gal 5:1; Gal 5:3]. But when Peter maintains that neither the fathers, nor he himself, with all the converted Israelites (including those who entertained Pharisaic sentiments, ), were able to bear the yoke of the law, he undoubtedly, at the same moment, renounces the Mosaic law, viewed as an obligatory system; he declares (1) that no one had been able perfectly to fulfil it, and (2) that, precisely for this reason, it could not be the means of salvation.
Act 15:11. But we believe that through the grace, etc.After having denied that the way of salvation led men through the law, he now declares that, on the other hand (), the grace of Jesus Christ conducted to salvation. Even as they (, the Gentile-Christians), we too are assured of salvation solely through the grace of Christ. [ cannot refer to , as Calvin, Calovius, and many of the older commentators suppose, since the salvation of the Jewish fathers (servati fuerunt being supplied) had here no connection with the question respecting the of the Gentile-Christians. (Meyer).Tr.]. In both propositions, in the negative, ver 10, and in the positive, Act 15:11, the Gentile-Christians are placed in the same class with those who had been Israelites. The thought which Act 15:10 expresses, is the following: They can as little bear the law as we can; the sense of Act 15:11 is: We too, like them, can be saved only through the grace of Christ.
Act 15:12-15. a. Then all the multitude kept silence.This on the part of the whole multitude shows that the mentioned in Act 15:7, had been arrested by the words of Peter, and that the truth which they unfolded, had tranquillized the minds of all. At this point Barnabas and Paul began to speak, and here again, as in earlier instances [see Exeg. note on Act 13:9-12.Tr.], the name of Barnabas is placed before that of Paul. The former doubtless spoke first, as he was longer and better known than Paul to those who who were present. The remarks of both referred to their own experience during their missionary journey to the Gentiles. They related the wonderful works of God among the latter, which he had wrought through them as His servants, that is, the remarkable cases of conversion which had occurred, and the operations of the new divine life which had manifested itself in so many pagans. These reports not only confirmed, but also more fully developed all that Peter had communicated as the result of his own experience. Thus the impression of the hearers was deepened, that the conversion of the Gentiles was a work of God, and that their Christianity, even without the observance of the law, must necessarily be acceptable to Him.
b. James answered, saying; he spoke after Barnabas and Paul had concluded their remarks; ( does not here occur in the same sense as in Act 15:12). There can be no doubt that this is the brother of the Lord, (see Act 12:17), who stood at the head of the church in Jerusalem, and, as a strict observer of the law, had received the honorable title of the Just. [The question respecting the identity of this Jamessays Neander, Pfl. u. Leit. d. chr. K. II. 436, note,is one of the most difficult in the apostolic history.Tr.]. He commenced by recapitulating the remarks of Peter, and confirmed the leading thought expressed by the latter, by referring to the prophecies of the Old Testament. As a Hebrew, who is addressing the Hebrews, he gives to the apostle Peter his Hebrew name ; (the more usual is merely a different manner of representing in Greek the original name [see the two Hebrew forms, both of which occur in the Talmud, in Gen 29:33 and 1Ch 4:20; the less usual Greek form occurs in 2Pe 1:1.Tr.]. , that is, God looked around, in order to accept a people, or, God resolved (for the middle voice occasionally signifies considerare in the classic writers). The antithesis in the phrase: , is very expressive, as in all other cases and (Israel) are contrasted with each other, while here the sense is: God hath taken a people for himself out of the Gentiles, , that they might know and revere, or, that they might confess, his name. All that Peter had related and represented as facts, James now explains by means of the prophetic word, and exhibits as the fulfilment of the promises of God. He says: , many prophecies; he adduces, however, only one of these in express terms. [, neuter: with this (Act 15:15), viz. with the fact stated in the words , etc. agree, etc. (Meyer).Tr.]
Act 15:16-18. And will build again the tabernacle which is fallen down.In the original Hebrew text, Amo 9:11-12, the promise is given that the house of David, that had fallen, should be raised up, or restored; (it is called , , because it was decayed). [Alias dicitur domus David, solium David: sed hc, tugurium David, quia ad magnam tenuitatem resejus redact erant. (Bengel). The original word is here (abs.), booth, hut.Tr.]. The additional promise is given that the Israelites shall inherit Edom and all the nations upon whom Jehovahs name is called [margin of Engl. Bible], or who are devoted to him, , i.e. they shall subject these to their authority. The Messianic restoration is, therefore, here described in terms which imply that the heathen nations which accept the worship of Jehovah, shall also share in the blessings of that restoration; and the conversion of Gentiles to Christ is, unquestionably, a fulfilment of this prediction. The version of the Seventy, which is adopted in Act 15:17, deviates here somewhat from the present Masoretic text, indicating that they follow a different reading; e. g., instead of: , they must have read: . [Pro Grcus interpres , pro , pro , pro legit (Rosenmlleri Scholia in Vet. Test. ad loc.)Tr.]. James himself makes some additions of his own, e. g., , and, afterwards, the words: , scil. , or , which latter some manuscripts have, indeed, interpolated [see note 5, above, appended to the text.Tr.], and which are in accordance with the sense; but they are a combination of the interpretation with the original words. The meaning of the words which James adds, is the following:That which happens in our day, God knew from the beginning, and had resolved to perform; that which we live to see, is simply the execution of an eternal decree of God. [This is the opinion of most interpreters, but de Wette says:The sense of . is not: ipsi ab ternis inde cognita, nor: quae ipse ab terno prscivit, etc., but: if has been known from ancient times (through the prophets,); comp. Act 3:21.Tr.]
Act 15:19. My sentence is [I judge]. From the facts, of which Peter had reminded them, and from the promises of God, contained in His prophetic word, respecting the reception of the Gentiles into His kingdom, James now draws the practical inference ( ), that those pagans who were converted to God, ought not to be burdened in connection with their conversion (; the preposition implies: besides, in addition to, their turning to God.). This is a conclusion which recognizes the evangelical liberty of the Gentile-Christians, rejects the demands of those who entertained Pharisaic views, and fully agrees with the sentiments of Paul.
Act 15:20. That they abstain.But James proposes, at the same time, that they should require abstinence in certain forms, on the part of the Gentiles. (, mandare; the word does not always mean: literas mittere; the former meaning is very frequent, and quite appropriate in this place.). James expresses the opinion that, something, at least, ought to be asked of the Gentiles. But the proposal which he made, shows that he differed widely in sentiment from the Judaists. They declared that actual submission to circumcision, together with the adoption of the entire Mosaic law, constituted the indispensable condition of salvation. But James demands nothing more than an , an abstinence from . , (a word entirely unknown to classic Greek) is derived from , which occurs in the Septuagint [Dan 1:8; Mal 1:7; Mal 1:12], and in still later Hellenists, in the sense of: to pollute, to defile; the noun, accordingly, signifies pollution. The four genitives which follow, specify the objects which pollute men. The first are , images of the gods, together with all that belongs to the worship of the latter; , when the word occurs without any specification, can as little as , be taken in any restricted or metaphorical sense (referring, for instance, to idolatry, incest, marriage within the forbidden degrees, etc.); it can here be understood only in its own proper sense, that is, lewdness, fornication. The other two points have reference to food. Abstinence is required from the eating of that which is strangled ( ), that is, of the flesh of animals killed by strangling [without shedding their blood]. Whenever a man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers sojourning among them ( ), hunted or caught any beast or fowl that might be eaten, the law (Lev 17:13) commanded him to pour out the blood thereof, before he used it as food. The Gentiles were, lastly, directed to abstain from blood ( ), that is, from eating it in any mode [Lev 7:2 b, 21; Act 17:10; Act 17:14], because the soul [, ] of every living creature is in the blood; comp. Lev 17:14; Gen 9:4. These laws respecting food occupy, in the old covenant, even a higher position than the Levitical, since it was declared that he who transgressed them, should be cut off, Lev 17:14; and they are expressly extended to the )[sojourners, strangers]. All that James, therefore, desires, is, that the Gentile-Christians should avoid those things which were, in their very nature, absolutely inconsistent with the true religion of the holy God, according to their ancient tradition, and which were in the utmost degree offensive to every Israelite, since he regarded them as vile and heathenish abominations.
Act 15:21. For Moses of old time hath, etc.Great difficulty attends the question respecting the logical connection of the contents of this verse with the foregoing. James here remarks that, from a very early period, Moses was proclaimed here and there in cities ( ), in so far as the Law was read in the synagogues on every sabbath. [The word sabbath does not mean the Lords Day, or the first day of the week, which is not so called in the New Testament, nor by the oldest Christian writers, but the seventh day or Jewish sabbath, etc. (Alexander, ad loc.)Tr.]. James does not, however, mean to say that Moses was read in the Christian, as well as in the Jewish, assemblies (Grotius), but he does, undoubtedly, assume that the Christians still remain in connection with the synagogue. That this fact is adduced as an argument, is unequivocally indicated by the word . But the particular point which is to be established by it, is not immediately apparent. According to some interpreters, the fact is adduced by James as a reason for demanding abstinence in the forms mentioned in Act 15:20; (it is indispensableJames is supposed to saythat we should demand this fourfold , for, otherwise, the regularly recurring weekly reading of Moses will perpetuate the offence which the Judo-Christians take, when they see the practices of the Gentile-Christians; Meyer). Others suppose that the fact is adduced as a reason for proposing to release the Gentile Christians from the law, Act 15:19; (the sense would then be: Although the Mosaic law has already been so long proclaimed, there are, comparatively, few persons [pagans] who are willing to adopt it; as the ceremonial law is a hinderance to the universal spread of the true religion, it must be abandoned; Gieseler). Or, possibly, after James has stated his opinions, and, in particular, proposed to exempt the Gentile-Christians from the requisitions of the law, he designs to sustain his entire proposition by answering a certain objection that might be made to it; he accordingly says that all could unhesitatingly adopt his view of the case; for the apprehension that the Mosaic law would thus decline in influence and authority, was altogether unfounded, since this law continued to be read every week in every city. (This interpretation, in its general features, is adopted by Erasmus, Wetstein, Schneckenburger, Thiersch, Ewald: Gesch. Israels. VI. 437.). Of these several explanations, the last appears to correspond more fully than any other both to the actual state of affairs, and also to the peculiar Judo-Christain sentiments and position of James.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. When the important question whether Gentile-Christians were also bound to observe the Mosaic law, was to be decided for all future times, Peter produces as an argument a certain fact furnished by his own experience, namely, the occurrence in Cesarea, Acts 10, when it was demonstrated that Gentiles as well as Judo-Christians, received the Holy Ghost. He exhibits this fact as a significant and instructive decision on the part of God, who had thus placed the Israelites and the Gentiles in precisely the same class ( ), without granting any advantage or privilege to the former, which was denied to believing Gentiles. He distinctly testified () in favor of the latter when He gave the Holy Ghost, and by his acts, demonstrated that he took pleasure in them. Such an experience, accordingly, proves the perfect equality of Gentiles and Jews in the sight of God, provided that they believed in Jesus Christ. This reasoning is conclusive, and convinces the mind. It is also, in its general features, a model, exhibiting as it does so happily, the apostles method of treating the history of the Church as a source whence clear views of the truth may be derived. The whole revelation of God in both the Old and the New Testament, depends on history; it consists, indeed, essentially, of History. And as the life of Jesus Christ is rich in instructions which it gives, since he not only lived his own doctrine, but also preached his own life, so the life and the experience of the apostles constitute a rich source of instruction. The doctrine of the apostle Paul is his own life, wrought out in consciousness and knowledge; the doctrine of the apostle Peter is, likewise, his own life, resulting in clear views and conceptions. The manner in which God governs his church in the present world, and during the lapse of centuries, or, in other words, the History of the Church, forms the doctrine, not only concerning the Church, but also concerning other points. Thus we are here furnished with a clear view of the Church, but we also receive instructions respecting the nature of grace, the usus legis, etc.
2. Our knowledge of the nature of faith has been greatly enlarged by the events described in the passage before us. How many truths are involved in that single proposition which Peter set forth, when he referred to the importance of that occurrence in Cesarea: God purified their hearts by faith! It teaches, first of all, that faith does not depend directly and exclusively on man; it depends on God; it is His work, His gift; it is wrought by His grace. The apostle testifies, in the second place, that faith possesses a purifying power. Faith is, therefore, something that is full of life and power; it is as Luther says, a living, mighty, busy thing it exercises a purifying influence, insomuch that the heart which had previously been ungodly and unclean, is now changed, consecrated to God, and morally cleansed. The proposition in Act 15:9, comprehends, in the third place, the truth that the seat of faith is in the heartnot merely in the memory or in the thoughtsbut in the very centre of the life of the soul, where all impulses and movements originate.
3. This was the first occasion on which the disciples clearly saw the essential distinction existing between Law and Grace. Paul himself, who had been personally conducted to the knowledge of the grace of God in Christ, by the manner of his conversion and by his peculiar religious experience, probably obtained his clearest views of evangelical, liberty in the state of grace, as contradistinguished from a servile legalism, only after he had encountered opposition in the Gentile-Christian congregations. The case of Peter was similar. He, too, had been taught by his experience of the grace of Christ, that the law is a yoke, very heavy, and, indeed, impossible to bear. All that the law makes difficult for man, is made easy by grace. For, in the case of those who are under the law, all depends on their own strength, their personal efforts, the perfect purity of the will; whereas, when man is in the state of grace, God purifies the heart, and inspires it with a love for all that is good.
4. After Peter, as well as Barnabas and Paul, had explained the question by appeals to their own experience in the service of the Gospel, James furnishes additional illustrations derived from the word of promise. The apostles referred, in general, to the prophecies of the Scriptures chiefly as guides in explaining the signs of the present times, and in seeking a knowledge of the divine will. They did not employ the prophetic word as the means for becoming acquainted with the future, and discovering times and seasons, circumstances and persons in it, as in a magic mirror. Our success in ascertaining the will of God, his counsel in reference to the progress of his kingdom, and the principles according to which it is governed, will always be proportioned to the degree of attention with which we study the unchangeable, eternal, and firmly established thoughts of God ( ).
5. The house of David is the principal subject of the prophecy of Amos, which James quotes. Davids royal house had decayed, had dwindled into a tabernacle, and had fallen into ruins; God purposes to raise up that which had fallen, to build it anew, and enlarge it, to extend the kingdom, which is, in truth, His own kingdom, even to Gentiles upon whom His name is called, that is, who are willing to acknowledge and serve Jehovah. God will Himself perform all these things, even as He had of old resolved to do.This promise sheds light upon the present question. It is already a significant circumstance that the theocratic royalty, or the kingdom of God, and not the law as such, occupies a central position in the promise. It is, in the next place, important, that the only condition of incorporation into the kingdom of God consists in the invocation of His name, or the imposition of His name [upon whom, etc, Act 15:17]. And this condition was already fulfilled in the case of the converted Gentiles ( , Act 15:19). Lastly, the words , are decisive, i.e., neither are we to perform the work, nor is our judgment to be consulted; it is God, the Lord; He has promised that He will do all these things, and, indeed, in its essential features, He has already done the work, for He has actually taken out of the Gentiles a people for Himself, Act 15:14. And therefore, [says James], we are not at liberty, and should not attempt, to impose an additional burden on the Gentile-Christians, which would seem to imply that the work of God had not been completely performed.
6. According to ancient accounts, which have been preserved to our day, James was a man whose personal religion was of the strictest legal type; on this account he was called (see my [the authors] Apost. u. nachap. Zeitalter, 2d ed. p. 236. ff.). [Lechler there quotes, in the course of his remarks, a passage in the writings of Hegesippus, which has been preserved by Eusebius, in Eccl. Hist. II. 23.Tr.]. Now it is remarkable that it is precisely this man who advocates the principle of the exemption of the Gentile-Christians from the Mosaic law, and who expressly demands of them nothing more than abstinence from certain things which were offensive partly in a social, and partly in a moral and religious respect. The circumstance would be incomprehensible, and, indeed, incredible, only in case that it were impossible that the same man should be rigid with regard to himself, but indulgent toward others. We are, however, fully at liberty to consider James as possessing precisely such a charactera character which claims our highest esteem. That he did not regard Moses with indifference, may be gathered from a slight intimation in Act 15:21, when the words are correctly understood. But it also appears from this verse that James hoped that the Mosaic religion would gain more respect by a wider extension and more general knowledge, as well as by a voluntary adoption of it, than by the imposition of any burden on the conscience, which could only tend to disquiet it (, Act 15:19). That James combined with habitual and great rigor in his own case, a very sincere and tender love for others, is apparent from a fact related by Hegesippus (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. II. 23), viz.: he was continually in the temple, praying on bended knees for the forgiveness of his people. If he prayed with such compassionate love for his unbelieving kinsmen according to the flesh, he was surely capable of meeting the Gentiles who were converted to the Redeemer, with tender forbearance and gentleness. It is, indeed, this feature which reveals to us the image of Jesus himself, shining forth from the soul of his brother (after the flesh, and after the spirit.).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Act 15:1. And certain men taught.Paul had come to Antioch in order to find repose after the trials which he had endured; but when he and the brethren began to build themselves up on their common faith [Jude, Act 15:20], this new affliction unexpectedly came upon them. It was a happy circumstance that the gracious manifestations of God among the Gentiles had already occurred, as they supplied the means for deciding the question. The blessing precedes painful experiences. (Rieger).The adversary again attempted to arrest the progress of the Gospel, and rob believers of the comfort and joy which the conversion of the Gentiles had afforded them. The church militant should always be prepared for such sudden assaults; it may otherwise lose its treasure. (Starke).
Act 15:2. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension, etc.It is better to choose strife and retain the truth, than to choose peace and sacrifice the truth. (Starke).That Paul and Barnabas should go up to Jerusalem.They might have insisted on their own claims, and refused to seek a decision in Jerusalem, as they, too, had received the Holy Spirit. The others might have maintained that these two men were not suitable messengers, and that persons whose minds were less biassed, should be sent. But all things were done on both sides with moderation and candor.
Act 15:3. And being brought on their way by the church.This conduct, indicated the deep interest which all took in the object of the journey. When the ambassadors of the Elector of Brandenburg were departing, in order to attend a religious disputation with the Papists, he dismissed them with the words:Bring me back the word sola, (that is, the concession that man is justified by faith alone), or never return yourselves. The messengers of the Antiochian congregation did not need such an admonition; still, the love and the interceding prayers of the people afforded comfort and joy to their pastors and teachers. (Besser).Declaring the conversion, etc.With all our zeal for the orthodox faith, we ought not to neglect the work of building up the kingdom of God. (Ap. Past.).
Act 15:4. They declared all things that God had done.Before they described the difficulties which had occurred, they related all that God had done with them, as an evidence that they neither discussed the point in dispute with undue heat, nor were led by it to forget other interests of the church of Jesus. They adopt the principle, on the contrary, of first exhibiting all the favorable aspects of the kingdom of God, and, then, of slating existing defects and faults, in order that appropriate remedies may be applied. Their conduct teaches us, that, although many evils still exist in the church of God, we should never banish from our thoughts the rich mercies which He is every where bestowing on men. (Ap. Past.).
Act 15:5. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees.How difficult it is to cast away the Pharisaical leaven, and to cling solely to the grace of God! But faith does not at once deliver us from errors and infirmities; long continued exercise, and many struggles, precede our deliverance. (Starke).Pharisees, which believed.Hence we learn that schisms are not always occasioned by unprincipled men, but that even upright persons are sometimes their authors, when they yield too far to their fancies and prejudices. (Ap. Past.).
Act 15:6. And the apostles and elders came together, etc.The divine inspiration by which the apostles were guided when they spoke and wrote, did not render their common consultations, and their meditations on the divine word, superfluous. (Starke).How this apostolic simplicity puts to shame the pride of later times! (Ap. Past.).This assembly exhibits the church in a light in which she is again seen only on a single occasion in the whole history of the pentecostal church. She appears in the presence of her holy Lord and Head; she views the task before her with great perplexity, and is conscious of her own ignorance; no previous experience, no recognized principle, no word of the Scriptures, can supply the present want. But she knows that her Lord had promished her, as a collective body, that strength and that aid which always suffice. Hence she seeks with sincere humility, but also confesses the truth with courage and joy. (Leon. and Sp.).
Act 15:7. And when there had been much disputing, etc.It was not an angry dispute, but a long discussion, during which the arguments on both sides were carefully weighed. This procedure was honorable to the apostles, and bears witness alike to their gentleness, since they listened to the opinions of inferior brethren, and also to their diligence and care, since they considered divine truths not superficially, but maturely. (Ap. Past.).Peter rose up.On this occasion we hear him speak for the last time in the Acts. We see him extend the hand of brotherly love to Paul, and we listen to their concurrent testimony respecting the mystery of grace, the actual revelation of which constitutes the theme of the Acts of the Apostles. (Besser).That God made choice, etc.As neither the written word of the Old Testament, nor the personal knowledge and judgment of the brethren, could conduct to a satisfactory conclusion, Peter seeks and finds a decisive argument in experiencein all that God had done before their eyes.Here we see how necessary it is to study Gods mode of administering the affairs of the church, and to improve our judgment by applying the lessons of experience, if we desire to distinguish successfully between error and truth. (Ap. Past.).Men and brethren.This appellation, was, at the same time, designed to give a certain character to the subsequent proceedings, indicating that they should be conducted in a fraternal spirit.Ye know, says Peter, not: Know ye! He speaks, not as a dictator, but as a brother; he does not proclaim his will authoritatively, neither does he speak ex cathedra, but, with his brethren, presents himself before the throne of the sole Lord of the Church. (Besser).
Act 15:8. Giving them the Holy Ghost.The gracious counsel of the Lord respecting the Gentiles, was plainly and impressively revealed by acts of grace, in the case of Cornelius.
Act 15:9. Purifying their hearts by faith.Faith is the true circumcision of the new covenant, the only true evangelical means of purification, as it cleanses from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit [2Co 7:1], by being the medium through which the power of the blood of Jesus penetrates the soul. Through faith, as Peter says, we obtain another, a new, and a clean heart, and God regards us, for the sake of Christ, our Mediator, as altogether righteous and holy. (Smalcald Articles [by Luther], III. 13).
Act 15:10. Why tempt ye God; etc?With the changes of the times, the customs and ordinances of God in his church, are changed. The greater the measure of mans knowledge and faith becomes, the less is he burdened with the servile yoke of the law. Mark this truth well, that those who impose the heaviest burdens, are not the best teachers. (Starke).To tempt God, is, to depart from his word, and to subject the order which divine wisdom has sanctified, to the control of mans impious self-will. (Gerhard).This grave and stern language of the apostles: Why tempt ye God? which, like a clap of thunder, ought to alarm our adversaries, makes no impression whatever on their hearts; they still attempt to sustain their own inventions, which they represent as services acceptable to God, by resorting to tyrannical and violent measures. (Apology [of the Augs. Conf.], Art. 28 (14).) [The adversaries of whom Melanchthon here speaks (ed. Rech. 294), are the Papists, who rejected the Protestant doctrine that we are justified by faith in Christ alone, and not by good works devised by men.Tr.].Which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear.When oxen have long borne the yoke, and dragged heavy weights, all that they earn by their work, beyond their daily food, is, to be struck on the head and be butchered; such is the experience of those who hope to be justified by the law. They are taken captive, and burdened with a heavy yoke, and then, after they have long and painfully labored to do the works of the law, all that they finally earn is, to remain eternally poor and wretched servants. (Luther).Nor we were able to bear.Peter intends to say: Men and brethren, speak the truth, and candidly tell me: have ye kept the law? (Besser).
Act 15:11. But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved.This is a precious summary of the Gospel, which Peter proclaims at the first synod of the church, for the benefit of all succeeding ages. It already comprehends the confession of the Council of Nicethe confession that Christ is the true God; for Christ can confer saving grace only in case he is the Lord, to whom all power in heaven and in earth is given. The great truth: we believe saved, is still, in our day, the holy symbol and the shibboleth of all true believers. By grace alonethis is the badge by which the children of the family recognize each other. Hence Melanchthon declares in the Apology [of the Augsb. Conf. Art. IV. (II) p. 60. ed. Rech.Tr.] that the doctrine of justification by grace, is the highest and most important article in the Christian creed, the only key to the whole Bible, without which the troubled conscience can find no true, lasting, and sure consolation; and Luther says: We cannot abandon this article, nor make any concession here, although heaven, earth, and all things else that cannot endure, should fall. (Leonh. and Sp.).What glory, what comfort, what joy, ye who are members of the Evangelical church, can find here! Ye are one, in your faith and confession, with the primitive, apostolical church. (Apelt).Even as they.The fathers and prophets precede the triumphal chariot of Christwe follow it. Their faith and our own, is the same; the objects of their faith belonged to the futurethe same objects of our faith belong to the past. (Lindhammer).
Act 15:12. Then all the multitude kept silence.This is, in truth, a Council of the Holy Ghost, at which men speak only as long as the Lords voice is not heard; but then all are silent, and bow in submission before the word of God! Wherever the Spirit of truth finds an entrance into the hearts of men, and a foolish pride and an egotistical love of controversy offer no resistance, the unity of the Spirit composes dissensions by the bond of peace; the truth is then readily found, and unanimously acknowledged; for the decision is made by the counsel and act of the Lord. (Leonh. and Sp.).The two words: yoke and grace, burned as fire in their hearts, and they sat in silence in the presence of the Lord. (Besser).Gave audience to Paul and Barnabas.These men explained and confirmed all that Peter had stated respecting the salvation of God which had appeared to the Gentiles. This is, indeed, the right course, when one teacher resumes the subject where his predecessor had paused, and relates even greater wonders which God had wrought, and when all is set forth in such harmony, that it is obvious to every hearer that it is one Godone Spiritwho worketh in them all. In such cases, the apostolic blessing [2Co 13:14] is bestowed in all its fulness. (Ap. Past.).O Lord Jesus Christ! Do thou thyself convene the true Council, and there preside! Deliver thy people by thy glorious advent! (Luthers Smalcald Articles) [at the close of the Preface, ed. Rech. p. 303.Tr.]
Act 15:13-15. James answered, saying and to this agree the words of the prophets.Peter had referred in his address chiefly to the work of God; James now shows how fully the word of God in the writings of the prophets agreed with the former. (Rieger).Even when signs and wonders occur, still the question ought to be considered, whether the Scriptures agree with them. (Ap. Past.).The apostles spoke by the mouth of Peter; James, the brother of the Lord, speaks as an elder or bishop of the church. (Besser).
Act 15:16. After this I will return, etc.It was not without the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that James was conducted precisely to this passage. For it speaks, first, of the fall of the Jewish church and the abolition of its temple service; it, next, conveys the promise that God will build a new church on the ruins of the old, and gather together in it all the Gentiles; it, lastly, sets forth that this church shall receive salvation only through the name of the Lord which should be called upon it, i.e., on which it would believe. (Ap. Past.).And will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down.The kingdom of Christ is not of this world; hence it is here termed a tabernacle which seems, indeed, to have fallen down, but, nevertheless, the Gentiles shall, through grace, lodge in it. The times of the New Testament are, in general, times of re-arrangement and restoration, and, indeed, all theology refers to the restoration of that which is fallen; Act 1:6; Rev 21:3; Rev 21:5; Heb 9:10. (Starke).God will be the builder; He will even close up all the breaches [Amo 9:11], and raise up that which is fallen. God Himself will do all. What a rich source of comfort we find here! Let us then be faithful servants and workers together [2Co 6:1] with the grace of God! (Ap. Past.).
Act 15:19. That we trouble not them which, etc.None are so easily injured by the imposition of external religious exercises, as those converted persons who are exceedingly conscientious; they are thus either led to entertain a false confidence, or they are distressed by painful scruples of conscience. Those who are less in earnest, are also less easily affected by such things. (Rieger).The most important resolution adopted by the apostolic Council, and the one which retains its validity at all times and in all places, refers to the release of believers who live under the new covenant, from the yoke of the ancient ceremonial law. It is an important resolution, which the church of Christ should very gratefully accept, and apply with great fidelity, as a very precious result of His meritorious work. For while the divine character, the purity, and the importance of this first Church Council were thus demonstrated, these features appeared less distinctly in succeeding times, when such Councils were held either to gratify carnal passions, or to determine trivial matters. (Ap. Past.).
Act 15:20. That they abstain from pollutions of idols, etc.To abstain from idolatry and fornication, was a duty which they owed to God; to abstain from things strangled, and from blood, was a duty prescribed by fraternal love.It is a mark of a purified Christian, that he avoids not only evil itself, but also the very appearance of evil. To the Christian nothing can be a matter of indifference; the actions which he performs, either honor or dishonor the name of the Lord. But at that time, when Jews and Gentiles dwelt together, His name was dishonored, when any one did those things which were regarded by the world as undeniable signs of heathenism. (Williger).
ON THE WHOLE SECTION.
Act 15:1-21. The importance of the first Church Council: I. The question which was discussed, Act 15:6; (it referred to the conditions of salvation). II. The spirit in which it was discussed, Act 15:7; (a spirit of love and truth). III. The principle in accordance with which the decision was made, Act 15:8-9; Act 15:12; (the testimony of God, borne in his word, and in his acts). IV. The confession which was made the basis of the resolution adopted by the Council, Act 15:11; (We believe that through the grace, etc.). (Apelt).
How does the Christian conduct the wars of his Lord? I. With couragein order that he may retain the crown; II. With fraternal lovethat love may not grow cold; III. With humilitythat the Scripture may preside as judge. (Ahlfeld).
We believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved: this is a confession, I. Of penitence, which proceeds from a deep and clear consciousness of sin; II. Of humility, which testifies that no merit attaches to good works; III. Of faith, which recognizes the riches of the love of God in Christ; IV. Of joy, which is founded on the peace of the pardoned soul. (Leonh. and Sp.).
We are saved, not by the law, but by grace: (Lisco).
That God I purifies the heart by faith, Act 15:6-12 : I. That the I heart of man needs purification; II. That this purification is effected by faith; III. That this purification of the heart by faith, is the work of Almighty God. (Langbein).
The Confession: We believe that, etc., Act 15:11; I. Its meaning; II. Its source; III. Its fruit, (id.).
The principles according to which that which is temporary in Christianity may be distinguished from that which is enduring. (Lisco).
The Christian mode of conducting religious controversies: I. Willingness to be guided by unmistakable manifestations of the power of God; II. A common desire to search the Scriptures, and make them the basis of union, (id.).
The Church Council at Jerusalem, a model for all succeeding ages: I. Its occasion was a vital question of the Churcha question relating (a) not to the faith (for on this subject, which was not at that time denied, no Council can make a decision from which there is no appeal), but (b) to the life and conduct (concerning the practical application of admitted doctrinal truth to ecclesiastical order and Christian practice). II. Its spirit was strictly evangelical; (a) a spirit of truth, sustained by the word of God and Christian experience; (b) a spirit of love, which sought not its own, but the welfare of all. III. Its result was a blessing for the church; (a) progress, by a positive and final release from antiquated external ordinances, but (b) a progress sanctioned by the unchanged fundamental principles of the Christian faith and practice, Act 15:11.
The issue of the first Church Council, a triumph of the Holy Spirit: I. His triumph, as a Spirit of liberty, over the yoke of outward ordinances, Act 15:10; Act 15:19; II. His triumph, as a Spirit of faith, over the delusion respecting human wisdom and righteousness, Act 15:9 ff. and Act 15:15 ff.; III. His triumph, as a Spirit of love, over a haughty self-will, and a narrow-minded partisanship, Act 15:1-2; Act 15:7; Act 15:12; Act 15:19-21.
[A maxim respecting peace, or,] An irenic principle (formerly ascribed to Augustine; see Herzogs Encyk. Meldenius), claiming the observance of all ages: I. In necessariis unitas, Act 15:11; II. In dubiis libertas, Act 15:19; III. In omnibus caritas, Act 15:7; Act 15:13; Act 15:20. [Lcke published in 1850 an essay, which has been much admired, on the age, author, original form, and true sense, of this celebrated maxim. After rejecting the claims of others, he ascribes it to Rupertus Meldenius, a Lutheran theologian who lived during the earlier part of the seventeenth century. Klose, the writer of the article in Herzogs Encyk. (IX. 305), recently found the original work of Meldenius in the city library of Hamburg. The author, as it now appears, expressed himself in the following terms, which may be regarded as the true reading: Si nos servaremus in necessariis Unitatem, in non necessariis Libertatem, in utrisque Charitatem, optimo certe loco essent res nostr. Tr.].
The Holy Ghost, the best President of ecclesiastical synods and pastoral conferences: I. He permits every one to speak, both men who are not distinguished in the assembly (Act 15:5), and also eminent leaders (Act 15:7; Act 15:12) the timid and the bold; II. He unites all on the common ground of the divine word and a living faith, (Act 15:9; Act 15:11; Act 15:15); III. He conducts the proceedings to a happy issueresolutions discussed with wisdom, and unanimously adopted, (Act 15:19 ff.).
When brethren are engaged in deliberation, there is a time to speak, and a time to be silent: I. Boldness of speech, when (a) scruples of conscience (Act 15:1; Act 15:5), and (b) clear convictions of the mind (Act 15:7; Act 15:12-13) are to be expressed; II. Meek silence (Act 15:12), when (a) a childlike obedience to the will and word of God, and (b) indulgent and pacific sentiments respecting the brethren, are to be manifested.
Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage (Gal 5:1) a warning addressed by the apostles to modern Christianity: I. Paul pronounces it (Act 15:2-4) that great apostle of the Gentiles, who hazarded his life in the attempt to cast down the barrier of Jewish traditions by the power of evangelical liberty; II. Peter repeats it, (Act 15:7-10)
that rock of the primitive church, whom God himself conducted to a knowledge of the truth [Mat 16:17], and whom the church that demands an implicit faith, in vain invokes as its patron saint; III. James unites with them (Act 15:13)
that preacher of the law; all testify alike, that the righteousness of faith [Rom 9:30] is the only way of salvation.
We believe that, etc. (Act 15:11) the common watchword of our evangelical, as well as of the primitive, apostolic church.
The confession of faith presented at Augsburg, no other than that of Jerusalem: I. The enemy with which it contends is the samePharisaism: (a) bondage, imposed by man; (b) the righteousness of works; II. Its foundation is the same: (a) the word of God; (b) Christian experience; III. The spirit which it breathes, is the same: (a) boldness in confessing the truth; (b) the meekness of love; IV. The way of salvation which it proclaims, is the same: (a) free grace, on the part of God; (b) a living faith, on the part of man.
[Act 15:11. Peters confession of faith: I, (We shall be saved). The salvation, of which Peter speaks; (a) What is implied by being saved? (b) Who shall be saved? (we). II. (The Lord Jesus Christ). The author of our salvation, (a) Christ is the author; (b) the only author. III. (Through the grace of, etc.). The ground of our salvation, (a) Not our works or merit, but (b) grace. IV. (We believe.) The faith of Peter in this salvation, (a) A clear and distinct faith; (b) expressing itself in actions. Tr.].
Footnotes:
[5]Act 15:7. , in Cod. A. B. C. [and Cod. Sin.], has justly been preferred by Lach. and Tisch. [and Alt.]; [of text. rec. from E. G. H., Vulg., fathers], is, at all events, an easier reading. [Meyer regards the latter as the original reading, since the speaker must have necessarily included himself.Tr.]
[6]Act 15:11. The reading I is, decidedly, better attested [by A. B. E. G. II. Cod. Sin., and adopted by Lach., Tisch., and Alf.], than . X [of text. rec. from C. D. Vulg. and adopted by Born.Tr.]
[7]Act 15:14. The dative is undoubtedly correct, and before it [in text. rec. from B (e sil.). G. H. and adopted by Scholz], is as undoubtedly a spurious addition. [The preposition is omitted in A. C. D. E. Cod. Sin., and is dropped by Lach., Tisch., Born., and Alf., with whom Meyer concurs.Tr.]
[8]Act 15:17. after [of text. rec. from E. G. H.] is spurious, according to the best manuscripts [omitted in A. B. C. D. Cod. Sin. Vulg. and by recent editors.Tr.]
[9]Act 15:18. , ; these three words [which are all that Scholz, Tisch., and Alf. insert in the text], are [also] all that this verse contains in the two manuscripts B. and C., in 13 minuscules, and some oriental versions. To this original text some manuscripts add , or, , or , E. G. . In place of the plural, A. D. and some versions [Vulg. etc.] introduce the singular: , , and Lachmann has preferred this reading. [Meyer, who recognizes only the three words just mentioned, regards this reading of A. D., as a later emendation. Tisch. and Alf., both of whom insert only the three words in Act 15:18, attach them to Act 15:17 without any point between and . Cod. Sin. exhibits after the following: , and omits . . . Tr.]
Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. (7) And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. (8) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; (9) And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (10) Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? (11) But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (12) Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. (13) And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: (14) Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. (15) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (16) After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (17) That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. (18) Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. (19) Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: (20) But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. (21) For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
There is somewhat very interesting in what is here related, of this holy meeting. The three Apostles, Peter, James, and John , were at Jerusalem at this time: (Gal 2:9 .) and, no doubt, though no notice is taken of John ‘s speaking on the subject, as Peter and James did, he was present also. And, as it is said, (Act 15:4 .) that Paul and Barnabas were received of the Church at Jerusalem, and a goodly company of the Church from Antioch accompanied them thither; we may well suppose this meeting must have been very numerous. Five, at least, Apostles, with the Elders of Jerusalem, and the whole Church of that city; (Act 15:22 ) and many of the Church from Antioch! And, above all! How eminently must have been the presence of the Lord in the midst? Reader! Is it not a subject of great animation, to contemplate, if but in idea, an assembly so formed under the Lord?
I consider it a subject, which calls for great thankfulness to God the Holy Ghost, in causing those words of the Apostles upon a point of such consequence as was here determined in this assembly to be recorded. Who but must behold God speaking in them, and by them, to this important purpose! And, while we find the matter so fully decided, as if to put an end to everything of a like nature, which might arise in the future ages of the Church, to disturb the peace of it; how truly blessed is it to find included also in this decision, the oneness of the Church of Christ, in both Jew and Gentile. This was a grand point to be made fully known to the Church. And, in what Jas 1-5) in reference to the Church of our spiritual David, whose tabernacle, in the Adam-nature of sin, was fallen down, and by Him was to be rebuilt; he adds, that all upon whom his Name was called might seek the Lord. And these things were not the result of any after act, in the divine mind, but the eternal purpose of Jehovah; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in Covenant purposes and engagements, from everlasting. There is somewhat so truly blessed in this, short as the Apostle’s statement is, as can never be sufficiently admired; neither God the Holy Ghost sufficiently thanked for, in causing it to be recorded. Truly we may say, with the Apostle: known unto God are all his works from the beginning! I must not trespass by quotations. But I beg the Reader, in confirmation of this precious truth, (for indeed it is most precious,) that he will look at a few scriptures before he quits the subject, Eph 3:1-11Eph 3:1-11 ; Joh 10:16 ; Isa 49:1-6 .
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
Ver. 6. And the apostles and elders, &c. ] This was the first Christian council. The four following general councils, a Gregory the Great held of equal authority almost with the four Gospels. In posterioribus conciliis (saith Luther) nunquam de fide, sed semper de opinionibus et quaestionibus fuit disputatum: ut mihi conciliorum nomen pene tam suspectum et invisum sit quam nomen liberi arbitrii. He fitly compareth the recent Popish councils to the meeting of foxes, which, going about to sweep a room with their tails, raise dust, but rid none.
a Nicen., Constantinopol., Ephesinum, et Chalcedonense.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6. ] The Apostles and elders only are mentioned as having assembled: in which case ( Act 15:12 ) must mean , and the decision of Act 15:22 must have been arrived at in a larger assembly . But most probably the deliberation of the Apostles and elders implied the presence of the brethren also, who are intended by ., and there was but one assembly . The objection, that no one place could have held them , is nugatory: the official presence of all is assumed continually in such cases, where the assembly is open to all .
] matter (in this case) of dispute : see reff.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Act 15:6 . : “de caus qu in disceptationem venit” (Blass), cf. Act 8:21 , Act 19:38 . The Ecclesia at large was in some manner also present at this final assembly, cf. Act 15:12 ; Act 15:22 , although the chief responsibility would rest with the Apostles and Elders, cf. Iren., Hr. , iii., chap. Act 12:14 , “cum universa ecclesia convenisset in unum,” Zckler, in loco , p. 246, and cf. p. 254; Hort, Ecclesia , pp. 66, 70, and see critical notes above.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Act 15:6-11
6The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. 7After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us; 9and He made no distinction between us and them, cleansing their hearts by faith. 10Now therefore why do you put God to the test by placing upon the neck of the disciples a yoke which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11″But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they also are.”
Act 15:6 “The apostles and the elders came together” Here the leadership met in private first. This speaks of the Presbyterian pattern of polity.
Act 15:7 “After there had been much debate” The leadership was not unanimous. Some agree with the statement in Act 15:5. These were all sincere believers. But some were clinging to the familiar while being blinded to the radical nature of the gospel. Even the Apostles were slow to see the full implications (cf. Act 8:1). Notice the elements of policy making: (1) private discussion; (2) open discussion; (3) vote by the congregation.
“Peter stood up” This must have been the way to get to speak to the assembled group (cf. Act 15:5). This is the last mention of him in Acts. He recalls his experience with Cornelius (cf. Acts 10-11).
“Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe” God used Peter to witness to His love and acceptance of the nations! God allowed this new radical understanding to proceed in stages.
1. the Samaritans first, Acts 8
2. the Ethiopian Eunuch, Acts 8
3. Cornelius, Acts 10-11
These were not full practicing pagans, but were all related to Judaism. However, 1 and 3 were confirmed by the Pentecost experience, which was evidence for the early church of God’s acceptance of other groups.
Act 15:8 “God who knows the heart” This was a way of confirming God’s complete knowledge (cf. 1Sa 1:24; 1Sa 16:7; Psa 26:2; Psa 139:1; Pro 21:2; Pro 24:12; Jer 11:20; Jer 17:10; Luk 16:15; Rom 8:27; Rev 2:23) of the faith of these Gentile converts.
“giving them the Holy Spirit” This apparently refers to the same type of spiritual experience as Pentecost (“just as He also did to us”). The very same manifestation of the Spirit occurred in Jerusalem, in Samaria, and in Caesarea. It was the sign to the Jewish believers of God’s acceptance of other people groups (cf. Act 15:9; Act 11:17).
Act 15:9 “He made no distinction between us and them” This was the theological conclusion Peter came to in Act 10:28; Act 10:34; Act 11:12. God is no respecter of persons (cf. Gal 3:28; Eph 3:11 to Eph 4:13; Col 3:11). All humans are made in the image of God (cf. Gen 1:26-27). God desires all humans to be saved (cf. Gen 12:3; Exo 19:5-6; 1Ti 2:4; 1Ti 4:10; Tit 2:11; 2Pe 3:9)! God loves the whole world (cf. Joh 3:16-17).
“cleansing their hearts by faith” This term is used in the Septuagint to denote Levitical purification. It denotes the removal of that which us separates from God.
This is the very verb used in Peter’s experience of the clean and unclean animals in Act 10:15; Act 11:9 (which follows the LXX of Gen 7:2; Gen 7:8; Gen 8:20).
In the Gospel of Luke it is used for the cleansing of leprosy (cf. Act 4:27; Act 5:12-13; Act 7:22; Act 17:14; Act 17:17). It came to be a powerful metaphor for cleansing from sin (cf. Heb 9:22-23; 1Jn 1:7).
The heart is an OT way of referring to the whole person. See Special Topic at Act 1:24. These Gentiles have been completely cleansed and accepted by God through Christ. The means of their cleansing is faith in the gospel message. They have believed, received, and fully trusted in the person and work of Jesus (cf. Rom 3:21 to Rom 5:11; Gal 2:15-21).
Act 15:10 “why do you put God to the test” The OT background of this statement is Exo 17:2; Exo 17:7 and Deu 6:16. This Greek term for “test” (peiraz) has the connotation of “to test with a view toward destruction.” This was a serious discussion! See Special Topic: Greek Terms for “Testing” and Their connotations at Act 5:9.
“yoke” This was used by the rabbis for the recitation of the Shema, Deu 6:4-5; therefore, it stands for the Law, written and oral (cf. Mat 23:4; Luk 11:46; Gal 5:1). Jesus uses it in Mat 11:29 for the requirements of the New Covenant in Him.
“which neither our fathers or we have been able to bear” This reflects the teachings of Jesus (cf. Luk 11:46). This subject is addressed by Paul in Galatians 3. But this is Peter who, like James, feels the weight of Judaism (cf. Gal 2:11-21).
This phrase admits the theological truth that the Law was not able to bring salvation because fallen humanity could not keep a holy law (cf. Romans 7)! Salvation could not and cannot be based on human performance. However, the saved, gifted, and indwelt believer needs to live a godly life (cf. Mat 11:30; Eph 1:4; Eph 2:10). Godliness (Christlikeness, i.e., Rom 8:29; Gal 4:19; Eph 4:13) is always the goal of Christianity, for the purpose of providing opportunities for evangelism, not personal pride nor judgmental legalism.
Act 15:11 This is a summary of salvation (i.e., “saved,” aorist passive infinitive) by grace through faith (for Peter cf. Acts 2-3; for Paul cf. Act 13:38-39; Romans 3-8; Galatians 3; Ephesians 1-2). Notice the way of salvation is the same for Jews and Gentiles (cf. Rom 3:21-31; Romans 4; Eph 2:1-10).
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
came together = were gathered together
for. Omit.
consider = see. Greek. eidon. App-133.
of = concerning. Greek. peri. App-104.
matter. Greek. logos. App-121.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6.] The Apostles and elders only are mentioned as having assembled: in which case (Act 15:12) must mean , and the decision of Act 15:22 must have been arrived at in a larger assembly. But most probably the deliberation of the Apostles and elders implied the presence of the brethren also, who are intended by .,-and there was but one assembly. The objection, that no one place could have held them, is nugatory: the official presence of all is assumed continually in such cases, where the assembly is open to all.
] matter (in this case) of dispute: see reff.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Act 15:6. , met together) by express arrangement (professedly). A specimen of a good council.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Act 15:6-29
APOSTLES AND ELDERS IN COUNCIL
Act 15:6-29
6 And the apostles and the elders were gathered together-Luke does not mention the church as he did in verse 4, but the apostles and the elders are mentioned; we know that the church is included here as we learn from verses 12 and 22. The whole church was called together to consider this matter with the apostles and the elders. The apostles, with their authority, no doubt, took the lead, and thus the church with its elders was trained under the guidance of the apostles. The importance of the matter was recognized and was given due consideration.
7 And when there had been much questioning,-It seems that a very full and free discussion was had; both sides were heard without partiality; this is the only fair way to discuss any matter over which there is a diversity of sentiment. Questioning is from the Greek zeteseos, and is the same word as used in verse 47. Here it means debating, as that is what was had. Some contended for the affirmative, the Gentile Christians should be circumcised, and keep the law of Moses. Paul and Barnabas with others took the negative of this proposition. After much discussion Peter rose up and expressed himself. He referred to the case of Cornelius; he was a Gentile and was converted to Christ by the preaching of the gospel by Peter. God had accepted the entire household of Cornelius as Christians; even the church at Jerusalem (Acts 11) had also accepted the Gentiles as Christians without requiring them to be circumcised. Peter reminds the church of this and refreshes their memory, for he says it had been a good while ago. According to the best chronology, it had been at least ten years since the conversion of Cornelius, and it had been about twenty years since Pentecost, so the church at this time was about twenty years old. It was fitting for Peter to speak at this time; he had waited until both sides had been heard and now it is his time as an apostle, and with the experience that he had had at the house of Cornelius and the church at Jerusalem, to speak as he did.
8-9 And God, who knoweth the heart,-God had given the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius (Act 10:44-45); this shows that God, who knoweth all things, had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; Peter had related the incident to the church at Jerusalem and the church had accepted the Gentiles as Christians without circumcision (Act 11:18.) God had made no distinction between the Jew and Gentile, and man should make no distinction. Peter seemed to be somewhat surprised that there should be no difference, but God had made none, and he had to accept that fact. Peter gives an additional thought that both Jews and Gentile were accepted by God on the basis of their faith in Christ; neither Jew nor Gentile was to be accepted as Christians by keeping the law of Moses. Their hearts were purified by faith; anyone who believed in idolatry had an impure heart, and those who believed in Christ, in the sense of accepting Christ, had a pure heart. Both Jew and Gentile had to hear the same gospel, believe the same gospel, repent of their sins, and be buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in a new life, in order to become Christians ; no distinction so far as the terms of remission of sins are concerned; no distinction so far as acceptance to God.
10 Now therefore why make ye trial of God,-Peter puts the matter in an interrogative form and asks, Why make ye trial of God? as though God had made a mistake when he gave the Holy Spirit to the household of Cornelius and accepted them without circumcision. They were refusing to accept that which God had accepted, or they were rejecting those whom God had accepted. They were laying down conditions that God had not imposed on the Gentiles, and placing a yoke upon the Gentiles that even the Jews were not able to bear. No Jew ever kept the law of Moses perfectly ; even those who were now insisting on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians had not kept faithfully the law, yet they wanted to place that yoke upon the Gentile Christians. Peter shows here that they not only opposed God, but they were inconsistent with themselves. The figure of a yoke is used here, and is the same that Paul used in Gal 5:1. Peter had been slow to see this point, as it took a miracle to convince him of the truth of it at Joppa and Caesarea. Peter has made four points that stand out distinctly: (1) he was directed by God to receive the Gentiles, as in the case of Cornelius; (2) God endorsed the reception of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Spirit; (3) faith produced precisely the same effect in both Jew and Gentile; (4) the Jews have no right to put on the Gentiles a yoke which God had not put on them.
11 But we believe that we shall be saved-The salvation which both Jew and Gentile could enjoy came through the grace of God. Grace means the unmerited favor of God; the free grace of God was expressed by his sending Jesus to earth to die for the sins of the world. The conditions of remission are faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and obedience to his commands. Salvation was not to come through the law of Moses, but through Christ. We have in this verse the last recorded words of Peter in the Acts.
12 And all the multitude kept silence;-The church had assembled with its elders and the apostles; now the multitude kept silence; the multitude became silent after Peters speech; he had profoundly impressed the multitude and had presented such clear and forcible arguments that there was nothing that could be said with profit. Again, the church had learned to respect the apostles when they spoke. Paul and Barnabas now spoke. Here again Barnabas is mentioned before Paul, because he was better known at Jerusalem than Paul. Paul and Barnabas rehearsed what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them. Again, Paul and Barnabas give God the praise and honor for all that had been done among the Gentiles. Three times (Act 14:27 Act 15:4 Act 15:12) Paul is described as telling the facts about the work that was done among the Gentiles; the rehearsal of the facts was more powerful than mere argument. God had done wonderful things among the Gentiles, and had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision. The Jewish Christians put themselves in opposition to God when they insisted on the circumcision of the Gentile Christians. Paul and Barnabas merely testified to the facts and left the Jewish Christians to make application of them and to draw their own conclusions; there was only one conclusion to draw, and it was in favor of Paul and Barnabas.
13-14 And after they had held their peace,-There had been a general discussion in which all who wished took part; then Peter made a speech and presented invincible arguments; then Paul and Barnabas briefly rehearsed what God had done for the Gentiles through them, with the clear conclusion that God had accepted the Gentiles without circumcision; now James makes the final speech. This James has been called James the Just, and he was considered a representative of the Jewish Christians. The Judaizing teachers possibly counted on him as a champion of their views, for they later made the wrong use of his name against Peter at An-tioch. (Gal 2:12.) This is the James who was the author of the epistle of James; he was not one of the twelve apostles, but after the death of James (Act 12:2), the brother of John, he became a leader in the church at Jerusalem. James reviewed the argument made by Peter as to how God visited the Gentiles to preach the gospel to them, and take out of them a people for his name. James here has reference to Cornelius and his household; they had been called out from among the heathen to be Gods chosen just as Israel was. James clearly sees the hand of God in Peters course at Caesarea, and in what Paul and Barnabas had done among the Gentiles.
15-18 And to this agree the words of the prophets;-It was startling to the Jewish Christians that God would extend the privileges of the gospel to the Gentiles; however, they should have known that the Messiah was to be a universal Savior. The prophets of Israel had foretold of the acceptance of the Gentiles. The prophet Amos is quoted here (Amo 9:11-12) by James, but the quotation is not a literal quotation from the Old Testament; some of the words are changed, but James, by the Holy Spirit, is giving the meaning of the prophecies. While James quotes only one prophet, Amos, yet he uses prophets in the plural. Other prophets had foretold the acceptance of the Gentiles. (Isa 2:2-4 Isa 49:6; Mic 4:1-4.) The interpretation of the quotation given by James is that the tabernacle of David had been wrecked, but that it would be rebuilt and that the Gentiles would be admitted into it. The prophecy from Amos speaks first of the fall of the Jewish race, next the promise that God would build a new church on the ruins of the old and gather the Gentiles into it, and finally those who were saved would enjoy salvation only through the Messiah. The picture here is the wrecked tent or tabernacle which was erected was boughs of trees at the Feast of Tabernacles, and which was rebuilt annually. Tabernacle of David is from the Greek skenen Daueid, and is a poetical figure of the throne of David. (2Sa 7:12.) In the rebuilding of the spiritual house of David, believers are to come from all nations of the earth. By the figure of a place falling to ruins, the devastated state of the kingdom is represented; the prosperity to be bestowed was to come in the days of the Messiah, and would consist of spiritual blessings, and a kingdom of righteousness would be established by the Messiah and the Gentiles would seek the Lord and become his people.
19-20 Wherefore my judgment is,-James now, speaking by the Holy Spirit, gives his judgment in the matter. It seems that James was acting as chairman of the meeting, and that it was left to him to sum up and conclude the whole matter. He is now ready to do this. The conclusion that James expresses is that we trouble not them that from among the Gentiles turn to God. This decision coincided with the decision that Paul and Barnabas had already reached and had preached. It was against the Judaizing teachers. James decision, as expressed, was somewhat in the form of a motion; the question had been discussed and now James moved that the entire church coincide with Paul and Barnabas, and that they write. James agrees with Peter in his support of Paul and Barnabas in their contention for the freedom of the Gentiles from the law of Moses. A further admonition of James is that we write unto them and give them such help and encouragement as they may need. In this letter James suggests that they abstain from the pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from what is strangled, and from blood. Four things are here mentioned: (1) pollution of idols; (2) fornication; (3) what is strangled; (4) abstain from blood. The words which James uses here denote formal decision sent by special messengers to the Gentile Christians. Pollutions of idols means the worship of idols, and especially eating the meats offered unto idols; one who in any form worships an idol is said to be unclean; hence, they should refrain from the pollution of idols. Idolatry, fornication, and murder were common sins among the heathen; these Gentile Christians had left all of these things when they became Christians, and are now exhorted not to return to them. The law of Moses enjoined certain restrictions about the eating of blood and respecting the life of animals; the Gentile Christians are not to be controlled by the law of Moses; they are to observe the general principles of righteousness and holiness.
21 For Moses from generations of old-The law of Moses was read in every synagogue on the Sabbath; there was usually a teacher that interpreted or gave the meaning of the law. Hence, to preach Moses was to preach and interpret the law of Moses; so to preach Christ is to preach the gospel, or to preach the law of Christ. Wherever there was a synagogue Moses was preached on the Sabbath. There have been different views as to why James made this statement. Some think that James here answers an ob-jection that the Jewish Christians might advance; that is, if such freedom were granted to the Gentiles, the law of Moses would decline in authority; others think that it was not necessary to write these things to Jewish Christians, for they had the law of Moses; a third view regards these words as spoken in the interest of peace and harmony between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. It seems that James had reference in a general way to the general practice of the Jews, and it was not necessary to place the burden of the law upon the Gentiles. The Jews had for a long time been taught to respect the law of Moses; they did not have to lose any respect for Moses or for the law, but they were to see that salvation came through Christ, and not through the keeping of the law.
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders,-A unanimous decision was reached, since the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, decided to select some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and there give the decision reached by the church at Jerusalem. We are not told how they reached the decision, whether all the members were consulted, or whether the membership expressed agreement with the apostles and the elders. The apostles and elders led in the agreement as they did in the discussion. This was a great victory for Paul and Barnabas and for the truth. However, James was practical, and did not stop with just the speeches and the decision; it must be conveyed to the church at Antioch. While they trusted Paul and Barnabas, yet they followed the wise course in selecting some brethren to accompany Paul and Barnabas to Antioch and bear the decision as a message to the church at Antioch. So they selected Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren. Some have thought Judas called Barsabbas was a brother of Barnabas, but there is no evidence to this effect. Silas is probably the abbreviated form of Silvanus, who later became one of Pauls companions in traveling. (1Pe 5:12.) Judas and Silas were chief men among the brethren. Such men would carry weight with the church at Antioch.
23 and they wrote thus by them,-The letter written was brief, yet it was clear and emphatic. The form of the letter shows that the apostles and the elders and brethren include the whole church; hence, it is a letter from the church at Jerusalem to the church at Antioch. The importance of this letter is enhanced in value by the fact that the Jerusalem church was the center of Christianity among the Jews, and the church at Antioch was the center among the Gentiles; this will help to bring together the Jewish and Gentile Christians. The letter is addressed to the Gentile Christians in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. The decision reached affected all Gentile Christians in every country, but only Syria and Cilicia are mentioned. This geographical notice of the Gentile Christians gives some idea as to the effect of the preaching of Paul and Barnabas; the harvest had been great. This also shows the activity of the church at Antioch in preaching the gospel to the regions round about.
24 Forasmuch as we have heard that certain who went out from us-Recognition is given here of those Judaizing teachers who had gone from Jerusalem to Antioch, claiming to have been sent out by the church at Jerusalem; condemnation or denial is made of their being sent by the church at Jerusalem. Hence, they had no apostolic authority for insisting that the Gentile Christians should be circumcised; neither did the church at Jerusalem endorse them. The church at Jerusalem felt in some measure to be responsible for the trouble these teachers had caused the church at Antioch, but now they are repudiated and a correction of their teachings is made. Hence, these teachers went of their own accord and on their own responsibility, and did not represent the church at Jerusalem. Their teaching had subverted the souls of the Gentile Christians. Subverting comes from the Greek anaskeuzo, and means to pack up baggage, to plunder, to ravage; this is a vivid picture of the havoc wrought by the Judaizers among the simple-minded Greek Christians in Antioch.
25-26 it seemed good unto us, having come to one accord,-So there was a unanimous decision reached. The apostles, elders, and the whole church had come to one accord about this matter. Having come to one accord is from the Greek geno- menois homothumadon, and clearly means that the final unity was the result of the private and public talks or discussion which was had on the subject. We are not told whether the Christians from the sect of the Pharisees (verse 5), who at first contended that it is needful to circumcise them, and to charge them to keepear that all were convinced. Here again we have the order: Barnabas and Paul, instead of Paul and Barnabas. This is the order that was used before Pauls first missionary journey, when he became the more prominent of the two. (Act 11:30 Act 13:2.) Barnabas in this official letter stands before Paul, because Paul had spent but little time in Jersalem, while Barnabas among the Christians there had for some time been a well-known character and honored leader. The church at Jerusalem recognized the great danger that Paul and Barnabas had suffered, as they are described in this letter as men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. They recognized the courage and heroism of Paul and Barnabas; this fact also proved the sincerity of Paul and Barnabas.
27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas,-Judas and Silas would confirm by word of mouth that which was written in the letter. Here we see another reason for sending Judas and Silas along with Paul and Barnabas. Nothing is said in the entire account of Luke of the presence of Titus who went along with Paul and Barnabas. (Gal 2:1-3.) Judas and Silas could not only confirm what was written, but they could represent the church at Jerusalem. They would testify to the genuineness of the letter and would strengthen the decision that had been reached; their presence and testimony would have a good effect also on the Gentile Christians.
28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us,-Here the authority of the Holy Spirit accompanies the decision written in the letter. This showed that the decision reached was the will of God, and that those who so expressed themselves were expressing the will of God. The decision was not merely mans decision or opinion, but was the inspired will of God. No burden was to be placed upon the Gentile Christians other than what the Holy Spirit placed upon them. Only such necessary things were required by the Holy Spirit. The restrictions named did constitute some burden, but it was necessary for their salvation. Some think that these necessary things were only necessary for the times in which they lived, but are not necessary for Christians today; however, it seems that these things are as necessary today as they were at that time.
29 that ye abstain from things sacrificed to idols,-James had mentioned these things in his speech. (Verse 20.) They now write them in the letter which is to be sent. In his speech James stated that they should abstain from the pollutions of idols, but now it is written that they should abstain from things sacrificed to idols. Some discussion has been had as to the meaning of abstaining from blood. Some think that it means to abstain from murder; others, to abstain from the eating of blood as forbidden by the law of Moses. It seems clear here that the blood is the blood of animals and that it should not be eaten. (Lev 17:10-15.) The heathen caught the blood of the animal in a vessel when the animal was slain and ate it as food; this was not allowed to the Jew for the reasons assigned in Lev 17:13-14 and Deu 12:16 Deu 12:23. God had forbidden Noah and his descendants to eat blood. (Gen 9:4.) Then it was incorporated in the law of Moses, and seems to be forbidden of Christians today. Things strangled means that they were to refrain from eating the flesh of animals that had been strangled. Strangled comes from the Greek pniktou, and means life taken without shedding the blood; hence, animals strangled had the blood left in the body, and in eating the flesh one would eat the blood. They were to keep themselves from fornication, or live chaste lives. The letter concludes that if the Gentile Christians would observe these things it would be well with them, and then concludes with fare ye well. This comes from the Greek valete, and means be ye strong. This was a common way of closing a letter.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
Act 15:25, Act 6:2, Act 21:18, Pro 15:22, Mat 18:20, Heb 13:7, Heb 13:17
Reciprocal: Pro 11:14 – General Mat 18:17 – tell Act 11:30 – to the Act 14:23 – elders Act 16:4 – they delivered Act 20:17 – the elders Gal 2:6 – in 1Ti 5:1 – an elder 1Pe 5:1 – elders
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
6
Act 15:6. The authority of the twelve apostles was universal (Mat 19:28 Mat 28:19-20), but they were then working especially with the Jerusalem church; at the same time they respected the elders of the congregation and worked with them. It should be noted that this whole matter was in the hands of the church at Jerusalem, and it was thus not a “church council” as Rome uses that term.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Act 15:6. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. Some seventeen or eighteen years had passed since the ascension of Jesus. Of the twelve apostles, one we know had gone through martyrdom to his rest; others were perhaps in distant parts; and round those who still remained in the old Jerusalem home, gradually had gathered a company of presbyters or elders, who shared their responsibilities and took part in their deliberations. In this first authoritative Council of the Church, most of the more distinguished and best known teachers of early Christianity took part. Peter, the leader of the little Church of the first days; and John, the friend of Christ, who probably survived all his brother apostles, and lived to give the sanction of his vast experience to the more elaborate church organization we find firmly established in the next century; James, the so-called brother of the Lord, the chief of the ascetic party in the early Church, the honoured representative of what may be termed the Jewish-Christian section; Paul and Barnabas, the great advocates for a broad Gentile Church, liberated from all Jewish restraints, and rites, and customs; Titus, the famous pupil of Paul, and afterwards his appointed successor in the chief government of the Cretan churches; Silas, another of Pauls trusted counsellors; and Judas,these, we know, were present, and took part with many other men, some known, some unknown, in these first public deliberations concerning the principles which for the future were to guide the rulers of the various churches rapidly springing up in the provinces of the vast Roman empire, and even in the still more distant and partially unknown East.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Resolving Conflict
The matter was placed before the apostles and elders to be considered. Quite a discussion followed. Though Peter’s actions were not always commendable, as when he dissembled in Antioch, it is clear that the apostle knew the truth. He insisted that God intended for the Gentiles to receive salvation through Jesus and such was the rule of authority for the church. He reminded them that God had sent him to the house of Cornelius to preach the gospel and they were accepted on the basis of the same obedient faith demonstrated by the Jews on Pentecost. He asked why they would burden them with a law which neither they, nor their fathers, had been able to keep. In fact, he said placing such a requirement on the Gentiles would tempt God. Instead of meriting salvation through perfect law keeping, all would be saved by the grace of God. The stage was set for Paul and Barnabas’ dramatic report of the miracles God had worked through them among the Gentiles ( Act 15:6-12 ).
James, the Lord’s brother, then asked the group to listen to him as he reminded them of Simon Peter’s work with Cornelius. He went on to quote from Amo 9:11-12 , which he saw as referring prophetically to the inclusion of the Gentiles in God’s people. So, James said he judged that they should not place legalistic requirements on the Gentiles which God had not placed on them ( Gal 1:7 ; Gal 5:10 ). He listed four simple rules for them to follow. They were not to eat of things polluted by idol worship or participate in sexual immorality which was sometimes associated with idol worship. They also were not to eat meat from an animal that died by strangulation or the blood of animals. These last two rules actually predated the law of Moses. They were first essentially given to Noah ( Gen 9:4 ). Since the law of Moses was still being read in the synagogues, this served as a good means of maintaining fellowship ( Act 15:13-21 ).
Fuente: Gary Hampton Commentary on Selected Books
Act 15:6-11. And the apostles, &c., came together to consider of this matter As the apostles commonly resided at Jerusalem, the greater part of them may have come together on this occasion; and the elders likewise, men most respectable for their grace and gifts, having been chosen to the office of elders from among those on whom the Holy Ghost descended on the day of pentecost. Many of the brethren, too, of the church of Jerusalem were present in this assembly. For the decree, which was passed on the question, runs in the name of the whole church. And when there had been much disputing Occasioned by those of the sect of the Pharisees, who maintained the necessity of circumcision. It does not appear that this debate was among the apostles themselves; but if it was, if they themselves really debated the matter first, yet might their final decision be from an unerring direction. For how really soever they were inspired, we need not suppose their inspiration was always so instantaneous and express, as to supersede any deliberation in their own minds, or any consultation with each other. Peter rose up And put the assembly in mind, how he had been ordered by God to preach the gospel to Cornelius and the other Gentiles who were with him; and how God, who knoweth the hearts of men, bare them witness That he accepted them without circumcision, having given them the Holy Ghost, even as to the Jews, and put no difference between them And the Jews; purifying their hearts Not by the rites and ceremonies of the law, but by faith. Now therefore Said he, why do ye not acquiesce in such a determination? Why tempt ye God to put a yoke on the neck of the disciples So grievous and burdensome, that neither our fathers nor we were able to bear it? Why provoke ye God by making circumcision necessary to the salvation of the Gentiles, contrary to his declared will in this matter, and contrary to your own conviction. For we Who have been educated in the Jewish religion, and especially we who are apostles, believe, that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ And not through obedience to the law of Moses, we Jews, shall be saved even as they The Gentiles, are to be saved; in one and the same way, namely, through the grace of Christ alone.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
6. After the Pharisees had stated their position, distinctly affirming that the Gentiles should be circumcised and keep the law, it seems that the assembly adjourned to meet up again at another hour. The next meeting is then announced in these words: (6) “Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter.” Neither this nor the former meeting was composed exclusively of the apostles and elders, for we have seen, from verse fifth , that the messengers were received by the Church, and we learn, from the twenty-second verse below , that at this second meeting the whole Church were present. There had been, however, previous to either of these, a private interview between Paul and the chief men of the Church, for the purpose of coming to some distinct understanding of the subject before it was laid before the multitude. This we learn from Paul himself, who says: “I communicated to them that gospel which I preached among the Gentiles, but privately to them who were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run in vain.” This language implies that his course was approved by these brethren of reputation, who were, doubtless, the apostles and other inspired men. Their approval of his course shows that the objections afterward urged were preferred by another class of men. The public discussion was not for the purpose of bringing about an agreement among inspired men, for they really did not differ after the facts were stated by Paul and Barnabas. But it was an effort, on the part of the apostles, to bring the other brethren to the same conclusion in which they themselves had already united.
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
Act 15:6-12. The Deliberation.The meeting is a public one (see Act 15:12 and Act 15:22). In Galatians 2 Paul says he laid his manner of preaching before those of reputation, in private. Peter comes forward (D says, in the Spirit) in the character of apostle of the Uncircumcision, rehearsing the facts given in chs. 10f. But in Galatians 2, Peter accepts the character of apostle of the Circumcision, leaving the Gentiles to Pauls province. Gods giving them the Spirit is narrated in Act 11:15.
Act 15:10. Why tempt ye God? i.e. ask for a further miracle? Peter speaks of the Law, as if he had studied under Paul (cf. Gal 3:23-25; Gal 5:2-6); see Act 15:11, and cf. especially Gal 2:16. The report of Barnabas and Paul in Act 15:12 had been made already in Act 15:4, and is given here in terms which it is difficult to realise. Nothing is said of the commission laid on them by the church of Antioch (Act 13:1-3). [Observe that Paul and Barnabas do not discuss the principle at stake. To have done so would not have been tactful, when the Jerusalem leaders were prepared to undertake this delicate task. They recount the facts, feeling that their mission is its own best apologetic.A. S. P.]
Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
Verse 6
The–elders; the leading and influential men. That the assembly was numerous, is shown by allusions in Acts 15:12,22,23. Perhaps these expressions, especially that in Acts 15:23, where the brethren particularly are mentioned, imply that the disciples generally were convened; as there is no evidence that the body of believers was very large at this time in Jerusalem, for a very considerable proportion of the early converts were residents of other places; and of those who belonged to the city, the persecution had driven many away. The account, however, leaves the constitution of the council uncertain, and has led, consequently, to eager discussion between those advocates of the different systems of ecclesiastical polity, who feel bound to discover models in the Acts for the institutions and customs which they find prevailing in their respective communions.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
15:6 {3} And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
(3) The matter is first handled, both parts being heard, in the assembly of the apostles and elders, and after is communicated to the people.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Peter’s testimony 15:6-11
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Evidently a large group of people observed the meeting that the church convened to debate the issue (Act 15:12; Act 15:22). Most commentators took the whole passage as describing public proceedings, but a few understood Act 15:6 as referring to a private meeting that took place during the public forum. [Note: E.g., Kent, p. 123.]
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
-2
Chapter 10
THE FIRST CHRISTIAN COUNCIL.
Act 15:1-2; Act 15:6; Act 15:19
I HAVE headed this chapter, which treats of Act 15:1-41 and its incidents, the First Christian Council, and that of set purpose and following eminent ecclesiastical example. People often hear the canons of the great Councils quoted, the canons of Nice, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, those great assemblies which threshed out the controversies concerning the person and nature of Jesus Christ and determined with marvellous precision the methods of expressing the true doctrine on these points, and they wonder where or how such ancient documents have been preserved. Well, the answer is simple enough. If any reader, curious about the doings of these ancient assemblies, desires to study the decrees which proceeded from them, and even the debates which occurred in them, he need only ask in any great library for a history of the Councils, edited either by Hardouin or Labbe and Cossart, or, best and latest of all, by Mansi. They are not externally very attractive volumes, being vast folios; nor are they light or interesting reading. The industrious student will learn much from them, however; and he will find that they all begin the history of the Christian Councils by placing at the very head and forefront thereof the history and acts of the Council of Jerusalem held about the year 48 or 49 A.D., wherein we find a typical example of a Church synod which set a fashion perpetuated throughout the ages in councils, conferences, and congresses down to the present time. Let us inquire then into the origin, the procedure, and the results of this Assembly, sure that a council conducted under such auspices, reported by such a divinely guided historian, and dealing with such burning questions, must have important lessons for the Church of every age.
I. The question, however, naturally meets us at the very threshold of our inquiry as to the date of this assembly, and the position which it holds in the process of development through which the Christian Church was passing. The decision of this Synod at Jerusalem did not finally settle the questions about the law and its obligatory character. The relations between the Jewish and Gentile sections of the Church continued in some places, especially in the East, more or less unsettled well into the second century; for the Jews found it very hard indeed to surrender all their cherished privileges and ancient national distinctions. But the decree of the Jerusalem Assembly, though only partial settlement, “mere articles of peace,” as it has been well called, to tide over a pressing local controversy, formed in St. Pauls hands a powerful weapon whereby the freedom, the unity, and the catholicity of the Church were finally achieved. Where, then, do we locate this Synod in the story of St. Pauls labours?
The narrative of the Acts clearly enough places it between the first and second missionary tours in Asia Minor undertaken by that apostle. Paul and Barnabas laboured for the first time in Asia Minor probably from the autumn of 44 till the spring or summer of 46. Their work at that time must have extended over at least eighteen months or more. Their journeys on foot must alone have taken up no small time. They traversed from Perge, where they landed, to Derbe, whence they turned back upon their work, a space of at least two hundred and fifty miles. They made lengthened sojourns in large cities like Antioch and Iconium. They doubtless visited other places of which we are told nothing. Then, having completed their aggressive work, they retraced their steps along the same route, and began their work of consolidation and Church organisation, which must have occupied on their return journey almost as much, if not more, time than they had spent in aggressive labour upon their earlier journey. When we consider all this, and strive to realise the conditions of life and travel in Asia Minor at that time, eighteen months will not appear too long for the work which the apostles actually performed. After their return to Antioch they took up their abode in that city for a considerable period. “They tarried no little time with the disciples” are the exact words of St. Luke telling of their stay at Antioch. Then comes the tale of Jewish intrigues and insinuations, followed by debates, strife, and oppositions concerning the universally binding character of the Jewish law, terminating with the formal deputation from Antioch to Jerusalem. These latter events at Antioch may have happened in a few weeks or months, or they may have extended over a couple of years. But then, on the other hand, we note that St. Pauls second missionary journey began soon after the Synod of Jerusalem. That journey was very lengthened. It led St. Paul right through Asia Minor, and thence into Europe, where he must have made a stay of at least two years. He was at Corinth for eighteen months when Gallio arrived as proconsul about the middle of the year 53, and previously to that he had worked his way through Macedonia and Greece. St. Paul on his second tour must have been then at least four years absent from Antioch, which he must therefore have left about the year 49 or 50. The Synod of Jerusalem must therefore be assigned to the year 48 A.D. or thereabouts; or, in other words, not quite twenty years after the Crucifixion.
II. And now this leads us to consider the occasion of the Synod. The time was not, as we have said, quite twenty years after the Crucifixion, yet that brief space had been quite sufficient to raise questions undreamt of in earlier days. The Church was at first completely homogeneous, its members being all Jews; but the admission of the Gentiles and the action of St. Peter in the matter of Cornelius had destroyed this characteristic so dear to the Jewish heart. The Divine revelation at Joppa to St. Peter and the gift of the Holy Ghost to Cornelius had for a time quenched the opposition to the admission of the Gentiles to baptism; but, as we have already said, the extreme Jewish party were only silenced for a time, they were not destroyed. They took up a new position. The case of Cornelius merely decided that a man might be baptised without having been previously circumcised; but it decided nothing in their opinion about the subsequent necessity for circumcision and admission into the ranks of the Jewish nation. Their view, in fact, was the same as of old. Salvation belonged exclusively to the Jewish nation, and therefore if the converted Gentiles were to be saved it must be by incorporation into that body to which salvation alone belonged. The strict Jewish section of the Church insisted the more upon this point, because they saw rising up in the Church of Antioch, and elsewhere among the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, a grave social danger threatening the existence of their nation as a separate people. There were just then two classes of disciples in these Churches. There were disciples who lived after the Jewish fashion., -abstaining from unlawful foods, using food slain by Jewish butchers, and scrupulous in washings and lustrations; and there were Gentiles who lived after the Gentile fashion, and in especial ate pork and things strangled. The strict Jews knew right well the tendency of a majority to swallow up a minority, specially when they were all members of the same religious community, enjoying the same privileges and partakers of the same hope. A majority does not indeed necessarily absorb a minority. Roman Catholicism is the religion of the majority in Ireland and France; yet it has not absorbed the small Protestant minority. The adherents of Judaism were scattered in St. Pauls day all over the world, yet Paganism had not swallowed them up. In these cases, however, the minority have been completely separated from the majority by a middle wall, a barrier of rigid discipline, and of strong, yea even violent religious repugnance. But the prospect now before the strict Jewish party was quite different. In the Syrian Church as they beheld it growing up Jew and Gentile would be closely linked together, professing the same faith, saying the same prayers, joining in the same sacraments, worshipping in the same buildings. All the advantages, too, would be on the side of the Gentile. He was freed from the troublesome restrictions-the more troublesome because so petty and minute-of the Levitical Law. He could eat what he liked, and join in social converse and general life without hesitation or fear. In a short time a Jewish disciple would come to ask himself, What do I gain by all these observances, this yoke of ordinances, which neither we nor our fathers have been able perfectly to bear? If a Gentile disciple can be saved without them, why should I trouble myself with. them? The Jewish party saw clearly enough that toleration of the presence of the Gentiles in the Church and their admission to full communion and complete Christian privileges simply involved the certain overthrow of Jewish customs, Jewish privileges, and Jewish national expectations. They saw that it was a case of war to the death, one party or the other must conquer, and therefore in self-defence they raised the cry, “Unless the Gentile converts be circumcised after the manner of Moses they cannot be saved.”
Antioch was recognised at Jerusalem as the centre of Gentile Christianity. Certain, therefore, of the zealous, Judaising disciples of Jerusalem repaired to Antioch, joined the Church, and secretly proceeded to organise opposition to the dominant practice, using for that purpose all the authority connected with the name of James the Lords brother, who presided over the Mother Church of the Holy City.
Now let us see what position St. Paul took up with respect to these “false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out the liberty he enjoyed in Christ Jesus.” Paul and Barnabas both set themselves undauntedly to fight against such teaching. They had seen and known the spiritual life which flourished free from all Jewish observances in the Church of the Gentiles. They had seen the gospel bringing forth the fruits of purity and faith, of joy and peace in the Holy Ghost; they knew that these things prepare the soul for the beatific vision of God, and confer a present salvation here below; and they could not tolerate the idea that a Jewish ceremony was necessary over and above the life which Christ confers if men are to gain final salvation.
Here, perhaps, is the proper place to set forth St. Pauls view of circumcision and of all external Jewish ordinances, as we gather it from a broad review of his writings. St. Paul vigorously opposed all those who taught the necessity of Jewish rites so far as salvation is concerned. This is evident from this chapter and from the Epistle to the Galatians. But on the other hand St. Paul had not the slightest objection to men observing the law and submitting to circumcision, if they only realised that these things were mere national customs and observed them as national customs, and even as religious rites, but not as necessary religious rites. If men took a right view of circumcision, St. Paul had not the slightest objection to it. It was not to circumcision St. Paul objected, but to the extreme stress laid upon it, the intolerant views connected with it. Circumcision as a voluntary practice, an interesting historical relic of ancient ideas and customs, he never rejected, -nay, further, he even practised it, as we shall see in the case of Timothy; circumcision as a compulsory practice binding upon all men St. Paul utterly abhorred. We may, perhaps, draw an illustration from a modern Church in this respect. The Coptic and Abyssinian Churches retain the ancient Jewish practice of circumcision. These Churches date back to the earliest Christian times, and retain doubtless in this respect the practice of the primitive Christian Church. The Copts circumcise their children on the eighth day and before they are baptised; but they regard this rite as a mere national custom, and treat it as absolutely devoid of any religious meaning, significance, or necessity. St. Paul would have had no objection to circumcision in this aspect any more than he would have objected to a Turk for wearing a fez, or a Chinaman for wearing a pigtail, or a Hindoo for wearing a turban. National customs as such were things absolutely indifferent in his view. But if Turkish or Chinese Christians were to insist upon all men wearing their peculiar dress and observing their peculiar national customs as being things absolutely necessary to salvation, St. Paul, were he alive, would denounce and oppose them as vigorously as he did the Judaisers of his own day.
This is the explanation of St. Pauls own conduct. Some have regarded him as at times inconsistent with his own principles with regard to the law of Moses. And yet if men will but look closer and think more deeply., they will see that St. Paul never violated the rules which he had imposed upon himself. He refused to circumcise Titus, for instance, because the Judaising party at Jerusalem were insisting upon the absolute necessity of circumcising the Gentiles if they were to be saved. Had St. Paul consented to the circumcision of Titus, he would have been yielding assent, or seeming to yield assent, to their contention. {see Gal 2:3} He circumcised Timothy at Lystra because of the Jews in that neighbourhood; not indeed because they thought it necessary to salvation that an uncircumcised man should be so treated, but because they knew that his mother was a Jewess, and the principle of the Jewish law, and of the Roman law too, was that a mans nationality and status followed that of his mother, not that of his father, so that the son of a Jewess must be incorporated with Israel. Timothy was circumcised in obedience to national law and custom, not upon any compromise of religious principle. St. Paul himself made a vow and cut off his hair and offered sacrifices in the Temple, as being the national customs of a Jew. These were things in themselves utterly meaningless and indifferent; but they pleased other people. They cost him a little time and trouble; but they helped on the great work he had in hand, and tended to make his opponents more willing to listen to him. St. Paul, therefore, with his great large mind, willing to please others for their good to edification, gratified them by doing what they thought became a Jew with a true national spirit beating within his breast. Mere externals mattered nothing in St. Pauls estimation. He would wear any vestments, or take any position, or use any ceremony, esteeming them all things indifferent, provided only they conciliated human prejudices and cleared difficulties out of the way of the truth. But if men insisted upon them as things necessary, then he opposed with all his might. This is the golden thread which will rule our footsteps wandering amid the mazes of this earliest Christian controversy. It will amply vindicate St. Pauls consistency, and show that he never violated the principles he had laid down for his own guidance. Had the spirit of St. Paul animated the Church of succeeding ages, how many a controversy and division would have been thereby escaped!
III. Now let us turn our attention to the actual history of the controversy and strife which raged at Antioch and Jerusalem, and endeavour to read the lessons the sacred narrative teaches. What a striking picture of early Church life is here presented! How full of teaching, of comfort, and of warning! How corrective of the false notions we are apt to cherish of the state of the primitive Church! There we behold the Church of Antioch rejoicing one day in the tidings of a gospel free to the world, and on the next day torn with dissension as to the points and qualifications necessary to salvation. For we must observe that the discussion started at Antioch touched no secondary question, and dealt with no mere point of ritual. It was a fundamental question which troubled the Church. And yet that Church had apostles and teachers abiding in it who could work miracles and speak with tongues, and who received from time to time direct revelations from heaven, and were endowed with the extraordinary presence of the Holy Ghost. Yet there it was that controversy with all its troubles raised its head and “Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension” with their opponents. What a necessary warning for every age, and specially for our own, we behold in this narrative! Has not this sacred Book a message in this passage specially applicable to our own time? A great Romeward movement has within the last seventy years, more powerful in the earlier portion of that period than in the latter, extended itself over Europe. English people think that they have themselves been the only persons who have experienced it. But this is a great mistake. Germany forty and fifty years ago felt it also to a large extent. And what was the great predisposing cause of that tendency? Men had simply become tired of the perpetual controversies which raged within the churches and communions outside the sway of Rome. They longed for the perpetual peace and rest which seemed to them to exist within the Papal domains, and they therefore flung themselves headlong into the arms of a Church which promised them relief from the exercise of that private judgment and personal responsibility which had become for them a crushing burden too heavy to be borne. And yet they forgot several things, the sudden discovery of which has sent many of these intellectual and spiritual cowards in various directions, some back to their original homes, some far away into the regions of scepticism and spiritual darkness. They forgot, for instance, to inquire how far the charmer who was alluring them from the land of their nativity by specious promises could satisfy the hopes she was raising. They hoped to get rid of dissension and controversy; but did they? When they had left their childhoods home and their fathers house and sought the house of the stranger, did they find there halcyon peace? Nay, rather, did they not find there as bitter strife, nay, far more bitter strife, on questions like the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, than ever raged at home? Did they not find, and do they not find still, that no man and no society can put a hook in the jaws of that Leviathan the right of private judgment, which none can tame or restrain, and which asserts itself still in the Roman Communion as vigorously as ever, even now when the decree of Papal infallibility has elevated that dogma into the rank of those necessary to salvation? Else whence come those dissensions and discussions between minimisers and maximisers of that decree? How is it that no two doctors or theologians will give precisely the same explanation of it, and that, as we in Ireland have seen, every curate fresh from Maynooth claims to be able to express his own private judgment and determination whether any special Papal decree or bull is binding or not? This is one important point forgotten by those who have sought the Roman Communion because of its promises of freedom from controversy. They forgot to ask, Can these promises be fulfilled? And many of them, in the perpetual unrest and strife in which they have found themselves involved as much in their new home as in their old, have proved the specious hopes held out to be the veriest mirage of the Sahara desert. But this was not the only omission of which such persons were guilty. They forgot that, suppose the Roman Church. could fulfil its promises and prove a religious home of perfect peace and freedom from diverging opinions, it would in that case have been very unlike the primitive Church. The Church of Antioch or of Jerusalem, enjoying the ministry of Peter and John and James and Paul, -these pillar-men, as St. Paul calls some of them, -was much more like the Church of England of fifty years ago than any society which offered perfect freedom from theological strife; for the Churches of ancient times in their earliest and purest days were swept by the winds of controversy and tossed by the tempests of intellectual and religious inquiry just like the Church of England, and they took exactly the same measures for the safety of the souls entrusted to them as she did. They depended upon the power of free debate, of unlimited discussion, of earnest prayer, of Christian charity to carry them on till they reached that haven of rest where every doubt and question shall be perfectly solved in the light of the unveiled vision of God.
Then, again, we learn another important lesson from a consideration of the persons who raised the trouble at Antioch. The opening words of the fifteenth chapter thus describes the authors of it: “Certain men came down from Judaea.” It is just the same with the persons who a short time after compelled St. Peter to stagger in his course at the same Antioch: “When certain came from James, then St. Peter separated himself, fearing them of the circumcision.” {Gal 2:12} Certain bigots, that is, of the Jewish party, came, pretending to teach with the authority of the Mother Church, and secretly disturbing weak minds. But they were only pretenders, as the apostolic Epistle expressly tells us: “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your-souls; to whom we gave no such commandment.” These religious agitators, with their narrow views about life and ritual, displayed the characteristics of like-minded men ever since. They secretly crept into the Church. There was a want of manly honesty about them. Their pettiness of vision and of thought affected their whole nature, their entire conduct. They loved the by-ways of intrigue and fraud, and therefore they hesitated not to claim an authority which they had never received, invoking apostolic names on behalf of a doctrine which the apostles had never sanctioned. The characteristics thus displayed by these Judaisers have ever been seen in their legitimate descendants in every church and society, East and West alike. Narrowness of mind, pettiness and intolerance in thought, have ever brought their own penalty with them and have ever been connected with the same want of moral uprightness. The miserable conception, the wretched fragment of truth upon which such men seize, elevating it out of its due place and rank, seems to destroy their sense of proportion, and leads them to think it worth any lie which they may tell, any breach of Christian charity of which they may be guilty, any sacrifice of truth and honesty which they may make on behalf of their beloved idol. The Judaisers misrepresented religious truth, and in doing so they misrepresented themselves, and sacrificed the great interests of moral truth in order that they might gain their ends.
IV. The distractions and controversies of Antioch were overruled, however, by the Divine providence to the greater glory of God. As the Judaisers continually appealed to the authority of the Church of Jerusalem, the brethren at Antioch determined to send to that body and ask the opinions of the apostles and eiders upon this question. They therefore despatched “Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them,” among whom was Titus, an uncircumcised Gentile convert, as a deputation to represent their own views. When they came to Jerusalem the Antiochene deputies held a series of private conferences with the leading men of Jerusalem. This we learn, not from the Acts of the Apostles, but from St. Pauls independent narrative in Gal 2:1-21, identifying as we do the visit there recorded with the visit narrated in Act 15:1-41. St. Paul here exhibits all that tact and prudence we ever trace in his character. He did not depend solely upon his own authority, his reputation, his success. He felt within himself the conscious guidance of the Divine Spirit aiding and guiding a singularly clear and powerful mind. Yet he disdained no legitimate precaution. He knew that the presence and guidance of the Spirit does not absolve a man anxious for the truth from using all the means in his power to ensure its success. He recognised that the truth, though it must finally triumph, might be eclipsed or defeated for a time through mans neglect and carelessness; and therefore he engaged in a series of private conferences, explaining difficulties, conciliating the support, and gaining the assistance of the most influential members of the Church, including, of course, “James, Cephas, and John, who were reputed to be pillars.”
Is there not something very modern in the glimpse thus given us of the negotiations and private meetings which preceded the formal meeting of the Apostolic Council? Some persons may think that the presence and power of the Holy Ghost must have superseded all such human arrangements and forethought. But the simple testimony of the Bible dispels at once. all such objections, and shows us that as the primitive Church was just like the modern Church, torn with dissension, swept with the winds and storms of controversy, so too the divinely guided and inspired leaders of the Church then took precisely the same human means to attain their ends and carry out their views of truth as now find place in the meetings of synods and convocations and parliaments of the present time. The presence of the Holy Ghost did not dispense with the necessity of human exertions in the days of the apostles; and surely we may, on the other hand, believe that similar human exertions in our time may be quite consonant with the presence of the Spirit in our modern assemblies, overruling and guiding human plans and intrigues to the honour of God and the blessing of man. After these private conferences the apostles and elders came together to consider the difficult subject laid before them. And now many questions rise up which we can only very briefly consider. The composition of this Synod is one important point. Who sat in it, and who debated there? It is quite clear, from the text of the Acts, as to the persons who were present at this Synod. The sixth verse says, “The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider of this matter”; the twelfth verse tells us that “all the multitude kept silence, and hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them”; – in the twenty-second verse we read, “Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole Church, to choose men out of their company, and to send them to Antioch”; while, finally, in the twenty-third verse. we read the superscription of the final decree of the Council, which ran thus, “The apostles and the elder brethren unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” It seems to me that any plain man reading these verses would come to the conclusion that the whole multitude, the great body of the Church in Jerusalem, were present and took part in this assembly. A great battle indeed has raged round the words of the Authorised Version of the twenty-third verse, “The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles,” which are otherwise rendered in the Revised Version. The presence or the absence of the “and” between elders and brethren has formed the battle-ground between two parties, the one upholding, the other opposing the right of the laity to take part in Church synods and councils.
Upon a broad review of the whole affair this Apostolic Assembly seems to me to have an important bearing upon this point. There are various views involved. Some persons think that none but bishops should take part in Church synods; others think that none but clergymen, spiritual persons, in the technical and legal sense of the word “spiritual,” should enter these assemblies, specially when treating of questions touching doctrine and discipline. Looking at the subject from the standpoint of the Apostolic Council, we cannot agree with either party. We are certainly told of the speeches of four individuals merely, – Paul, Barnabas, Peter, and James – to whom may be conceded the position of bishops, and even more. But, then, it is evident that the whole multitude of the Church was present at this Synod, and took an active part in it. We are expressly told (Act 15:4-5): “When they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church and the apostles and the elders” “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees who believed, saying, It is needful to circumcise them.” This indeed happened at the first meeting of the Church held to receive the Antiochene deputation when they arrived. But there does not seem to have been any difference between the constitution and authority of the first and second meetings. Both were what we should call Ecclesiastical Assemblies. Laymen joined in the discussions of the first, and doubtless laymen joined in the discussions and much questioning of the second.
There is not indeed a hint which would lead us to conclude that the Pharisees, who rose up and argued on behalf of the binding character of the law of Moses, held any spiritual office whatsoever. So far as the sacred text puts it, they may have been laymen pure and simple, such as were the ordinary Pharisees. I cannot, indeed, see how any member of the Church of England can consistently maintain either from Holy Scripture, ancient ecclesiastical history, or the history of his own Church, that laymen are quite shut out from councils debating questions touching Christian faith, and that their consideration must be limited to bishops, or at least clergymen alone. The Apostolic Church seems to have admitted the freest discussion. The General Councils most certainly tolerated very considerable lay interference. The Emperor Constantine, though not even baptised, obtruded much of his presence and exercised much of his influence upon the great Nicene Council. Why, even down to the sixteenth century, till the Tridentine Council, the ambassadors of the great Christian Powers of Europe sat in Church synods as representing the laity; and it was only in the Council of the Vatican, which met in 1870, that even the Roman Catholic Church formally denied the right of the people to exercise a certain influence in the determination of questions touching faith and discipline by the expulsion of the ambassadors who had in every previous council held a certain defined place. While again, when we come to the history of the Church of England, we find that the celebrated Hooker, the vindicator of its Church polity, expressly defended the royal supremacy as exercised within that Church on the ground that the king represented by delegation the vast body of the laity, who through him exercised a real influence upon all questions, whether of doctrine or discipline. I feel a personal interest in this question, because one of the charges most freely hurled against the Church of Ireland is this, that she has admitted laymen to discussions and votes concerning such questions. I cannot see how, consistently with her past history as an established Church, she could have done otherwise. I cannot see how the Church of England, if she comes in the future to be disestablished, can do otherwise. That Church has always admitted a vast amount of lay interference, even prior to the Reformation, and still more since that. important event. Extreme men may scoff at those branches of their own Communion which have admitted laymen to vote in Church synods upon all questions whatsoever; but they forget when doing so that statements and decrees most dear to themselves bear manifest traces of far more extreme lay intervention. The Ornaments Rubric, standing before the order for Morning Prayer, is a striking evidence of this. It is dear to the hearts of many, because it orders the use of eucharistic vestments and the preservation of the chancels in the ancient style; but on what grounds does it do so? Let the precise words of the rubric be the answer: “Here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained, and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth.” Objections to the determinations, rules, and canons of the Irish Church Synod might have some weight did they profess, as this rubric does, to have been ordained and imposed by the order of laymen alone. But when the bishops of a. Church have an independent vote, the clergy an independent vote, the free and independent vote of the laity is totally powerless by itself to introduce any novelty, and is only powerful to prevent change in the ancient order. I do not feel bound to defend some ill-judged expressions and foolish speeches which some lay representatives may have made in the Irish Church Synod, as again no member of the Church of England need trouble himself to defend some rash speeches made in Parliament on Church topics. In the first moments of unaccustomed freedom Irish laymen did and said some rash things, and, overawing the clergy by their fierce expressions, may have caused the introduction of some hasty and ill-advised measures. But sure I am that every sincere member of the Church to which I belong will agree that the admission of the lay representatives to a free discussion and free vote upon every topic has had a marvellous influence in broadening their conceptions of Scripture truth and deepening their affections and attachment to their Mother Church which has treated and trusted them thus generously.
V. The proceedings of the Apostolic Synod next demand our attention. The account which has been handed down is doubtless a mere outline of what actually happened. We are not told anything concerning the opening of the Assembly or how the discussion was begun. St. Luke was intent merely on setting forth the main gist of affairs, and therefore he reports but two speeches and tells of two others. Some Christian Pharisee having put forward his objections to the position occupied by the Gentile converts, St. Peter arose, as was natural, he having been the person through whose action the present trouble and discussion had originated. St. Peters speech is marked on this occasion by the same want of assumption of any higher authority than belonged to his brethren which we have noted before when objections were taken to his dealings with Cornelius. His speech claims nothing for himself, does not even quote the Scriptures of the Old Testament, but simply repeats in a concise shape the story of the conversion of Cornelius, points out that God put no difference between Jew and Gentile, suggesting that if God had put no difference between them why should man dare to do so, and then ends with proclaiming the great doctrine of grace that men, whether Jews or Gentiles, are saved through faith in Christ alone, which purifies their hearts and lives. After Peters speech there arose James the Lords brother, who from ancient times has been regarded as the first bishop of Jerusalem, and who most certainly, from the various references to him both here and elsewhere in the Act 12:17; Act 21:18 and in the Epistle to the Galatians, seems to have occupied the supreme place in that Church. James was a striking figure. There is a long account of him left us by Hegesippus, a very ancient Church historian, who bordered on apostolic times, and now preserved tot us in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius, 2:23. There he is described as an ascetic and a Nazarite, like John the Baptist, from his earliest childhood. “He drank neither wine nor fermented liquors, and abstained from animal food. A razor never came upon his head, he never anointed with oil, and never used the bath. He alone was allowed to enter the sanctuary. He never wore woollen, but linen garments. He was in the habit of entering the Temple alone, and was often found upon his bended knees, and interceding for the forgiveness of the people; so that his knees became as hard as camels, in consequence of his habitual supplication and kneeling before God. And indeed on account of his exceeding great piety he was called the Just and Oblias, which signifies the Rampart of the People.” This description is the explanation of the power and authority of James the Just in the Apostolic Assembly. He was a strict legalist himself. He desired no freedom for his own share, but rejoiced in observances and restrictions far beyond the common lot of the Jews. When such a man pronounced against the attempt made to impose circumcision and the law as a necessary condition of salvation, the Judaisers must have felt that their cause was lost. St. James expressed his views in no uncertain terms. He begins by referring to St. Peters speech and the conversion of Cornelius. He then proceeds to show how the prophets foretold the ingathering of the Gentiles, quoting a passage {Amo 9:11-12} which the Jewish expositors themselves applied to the Messiah. His method of Scriptural interpretation is exactly the same as that of St. Paul and St. Peter. It is very different from ours, but it was the universal method of his day; and when we wish to arrive at the meaning of the Scriptures, or for that matter of any work, we ought to strive and place ourselves at the standpoint and amid the circumstances of the writers and actors. The prophet Amos speaks of the tabernacle of David as fallen down. The rebuilding of it is then foretold, and James sees in the conversion of the Gentiles this predicted rebuilding. He then pronounces in the most decided language against “troubling those who from among the Gentiles are turned to God” in the matter of legal observances, laying down at the same time the concessions which should be demanded from the Gentiles so as not to cause offence to their Jewish brethren. The sentence thus authoritatively pronounced by the strictest Jewish Christian was naturally adopted by the Apostolic Synod, and they wrote a letter to the disciples in Syria and Cilicia, embodying their decision, which for a time settled the controversy which had been raised. This epistle begins by disclaiming utterly and at once the agitators who had gone forth to Antioch and had raised the disturbances. It declared that circumcision was unnecessary for the Gentile converts. This was the great point upon which St. Paul was most anxious. He had no objection, as we have already said, to the Jews observing their legal rites and ceremonies, but he was totally opposed to the Gentiles coming under any such rule as a thing necessary to salvation. The epistle then proceeds to lay down certain concessions which the Gentiles should in turn make. They should abstain from meats offered in sacrifice unto idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from fornication; all of them points upon which the public opinion of the Gentiles laid no stress, but which were most abhorrent to a true Jew. The decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, as the inspired historian expressly terms them in Act 16:4, were mere temporary expedients. They determined indeed one important question, that circumcision should not be imposed on the Gentiles-that Judaism, in fact, was not in and by itself a saving dispensation; but left unsolved many other questions, even touching this very subject of circumcision and the Jewish law, which had afterwards to be debated and threshed out, as St. Pauls Epistle to the Galatians proves. But, turning our eyes from the obsolete controversy which evoked the Apostolic Epistle, and viewing the subject from a wider and a modern standpoint, we may say that the decrees of this primitive Synod narrated in this typical history bestow their sanction upon the great principles of prudence, wisdom, and growth in the Divine life and in Church work. It was with the apostles themselves as with the Church ever since. Apostles even must not make haste, but must be contented to wait upon the developments of Gods providence. Perfection is an excellent thing, but then perfection cannot be attained at once. Here a little and there a little is the Divine law under the New as under the Old Dispensation. Truth is the fairest and most excellent of all possessions, but the advocates of truth must not expect it to be grasped in all its bearings by all sorts and conditions of men at one and the same time. They must be content, as St. Paul was, if one step be taken at a time; if progress be in the right and not in the wrong direction; and must be willing to concede much to the feelings and long-descended prejudices of short-sighted human nature.